Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: 


you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Presented in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Science
in the
University of Canterbury
by
K. J. THORN
Centre for Resource Management
University of Canterbury and Lincoln College
1984
ii
ABSTRACT
Public participation is a desirable and necessary component
of any decision-making process regarding the allocation of
resources.
In its present form, however, it is not as
effective as it could be.
The aim of this study is to
develop a strategy leading towards effective public participation.
The study focusses primarily on the participants.
Criteria
are developed for discerning their effective involvement in
a decision.
1.
The criteria are:
the achievement of the individual's or the interest
group's objectives;
2.
and
the influence the participants have on the decision
or decision-making process.
These criteria are applied to six interest groups who
participated in the recent Rakaia River National Water
Conservation Order Hearing.
It is concluded from this
examination that participants are more likely to be effective
in their participation if they have experience in participatory exercises, access to all information, good relations
with the media, professional assistance and dedication to
the issue.
[The need for a clear and effective natural resources policy
to guide decisions of resource allocation is also proposed
in this study.
There is also a need for a greater recogni-
tion of the importance of public participation in social
and environmental impact assessment procedure~~J
Effective public participation is a goal often sought but
not often achieved.
Public awareness, public education
and the initiation of independent evaluators for public
participation programmes would provide the basis for a
strategy of more effective public participation.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
ABSTRACT
1
2
ii
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Methodology
3
1.2 Study Structure
5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
7
2.l Perceptions of public
participation
3
4
2.2 Arguments for and against
participation
11
2.3 Public participation - its role
in decision-making
15
WHO PARTICIPATES?
20
3.1 Individuals
21
3.2 Interest Groups
23
3.3 Criteria for effective
participation
26
THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATION:
A CASE STUDY
30
4.1 The Rakaia River
31
4.1.1 Background to the Hearing
5
8
39
4.2 Participation in water and
soil legislation
43
4.3 The participants
46
4.3.1 Classification and
description
48
4.3.2 Effectiveness of
participants
54
TOWARDS A STRATEGY OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
69
5.1 Decision-making
69
5.2 The participants
73
5.3 The hearing as a participatory
technique
76
5.4 The role of the judiciary
78
5.5 Legislative changes
79
5.6 Effectiveness of participants
82
5.7 Effective public participation
84
iv
Chapter
6
SUMMARY
89
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
95
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
96
REFERENCES
98
v
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
4.1
Rakaia River - Summary of Events
40
4.2
Participants - Rakaia River NWCO
Hearing
49
FIGURES
Arnstein's ladder of citizen
participation
9
The upward-forming consensus
model of decision-making
18
The stress model of decisionmaking
18
4.1
The Rakaia River and Catchment
32
4.2
Competing and complementary
demands for water from the
Rakaia River
35
Existing and proposed irrigation
schemes on the Rakaia River
36
The full procedure for national
and local conservation orders as
established by the 1981 Amendment
to the Water and Soil Conservation
Act 1967
47
Flow of decisions for water
allocation in the Rakaia River
71
Public participation and the
social impact assessment and
environmental impact assessment
procedures
87
2.1
2.2
2.3
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
SECTION ONE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1981a historic decision relating to water management
in New Zealand was made when Parliament passed the Water
and Soil Conservation Amendment Act.
The object of this
Amendment was.to recognise and sustain the amenity afforded
by waters in their natural state.
This Act was the first
recognition by Parliament of the value of scenic and
recreational attributes and of wildlife and wildlife
habitats in New Zealand water management.
Implementation
of this Act, however, has been fraught with difficulties,
not the least of which has been to determine what the public
wants and what it is willing to sacrifice in order to get
it.
Those who promoted the idea of "wild and Scenic
Rivers" appeared to assume that if sufficient opportunity
was given to those involved in the use of the water to
express their views, a barometer of public support would be
provided.
Recent experience with respect to the allocation
of the Rakaia River water in Canterbury suggests that the
problem is much more complicated than this, and that a
thorough evaluation of public participatiQn procedures
needs to be made before one can be confident that they are
both efficient and effective.
The role of the public in planning and decision-making has
become a matter of concern in New Zealand in recent years
for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons.
These are:
2
1.
There has been increasing alienation of the public as
more and more decisions affecting the lifestyle and
aspirations of the people are made by the government
and the bureaucracy.
2.
There have also been several miscalculations of public
desires in resource management decisions.
3.
The existing mechanisms for monitoring public views
have been shown to be ineffective, both from the point
of view of the decision-maker and of the public at
large.
This ineffectiveness seems to be especially
so when some form of preservation is sought on watersheds for amenity or wildlife preservation.
The aim of this study, therefore,
is
to develop a strategy
leading towards effective participation, focussing primarily
on the participants and their role in any resource allocation
decision.
The study was undertaken with four basic
objectives:
1.
to review participation and decision-making;
2.
to identify the participants of any decision-making
process and to develop criteria to determine the
effectiveness of the participants;
3.
to examine the participants of one resource allocation
decision; and
4.
to identify areas of the present participation process
that require particular attention.
The Rakaia River National Water Conservation Order (NWCO)
Hearings provided an opportunity to observe the effectiveness
and the efficiency of this method of public participation.
3
1.1
Methodology
The study consisted of five sequential steps.
1.
Literature Review
A literature review to identify the conceptual underpinnings
of public participation and decision-making was carried out.
This review illuminated the present experiences of public
participation in resource allocation both in New Zealand
and in other countries.
2.
Examination of the Rakaia River NWCO Hearing
A case study approach was used to pursue a more detailed
c
y
examination of the evidence and participants, with the
focus being a description and evaluation of a national
water conservation order application regarding the allocation
of water from the Rakaia River in Canterbury.
The study
covers the period from June 1983 through to March 1984,
during which time the application for a NWCO for this river
was received, heard and a decision announced.
Concurrently,
the North Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water
.Board (NCCB & RWB) were investigating the resources of the
river and catchment, preparing a draft water allocation and
management plan.
Information on public participation procedures which was not
available through the literature, was gained by attending
the Hearing.
Observation of the procedure and access to all
documentary data (mainly newspaper articles dating back to
the beginning of the Rakaia River issue, and the transcripts
from the Hearing) provided the link between the theory -and
the practice of public participation.
4
3.
Interviewing
Interviews with selected members of various interest groups
from the Rakaia River NWCO Hearing, were undertaken during
April and May 1984.
Only those members who had an active
role in the Hearing, or in the preparation for the Hearing,
were interviewed.
In order to make comparisons between the
interest groups an informal, but structured, format was
followed.
The questions asked of every group representative
were:
(a)
General information regarding the group structure
and organisation
- when was the group formed?
- how many members are in the group?
- how does the group organise funding?
- what are the general aims and objectives of the group?
(b)
Specific information regarding the NWCO Hearing
- what approach was taken for the submission?
- how much time was spent in the preparation of the
submission?
- have the members of the group had previous
experience in hearings of this type?
- what did the group hope to achieve?
- did they succeed?
- how do they feel about the decision?
(cl
Comments on the participation process
- did the group receive a "fair" hearing?
- how did they feel about the decision-making committee?
- does the group intend to continue to be involved with
the Rakaia River issue?
5
4.
Analysis
The information obtained from the literature, the interviews,
documentary data, and from observing the Hearing, was used
to analyse the public participation procedures for resource
allocation in New Zealand.
5.
Preparation of the report
1.2
Study Structure
This study is divided into three sections.
represen~s
Section One
a general overview of public participation in
decisions concerning resource allocation.
Chapter 2 deals
specifically with the concept of pubiic participation and
highlights the various definitions and perceptions of this
concept.
The arguments for and against public participa-
tion in any decision-making process are then outlined.
The approach taken in Chapter 3 is one which focusses on the
participant's perspective, rather than the perspective of
the managers of the resource or the implementors of the
public participation programme.
There are three main
reasons for introducing this perspective on public participation.
First, the extent of the public's interest in public
participation sets the outer limits of attempts to involve
"
the public in decision-making.
Second, such a perspective
may help those responsible for establishing participation
programmes to shape those programmes to best fit the public's
attitudes towards participation.
The third reason relates
to a lack of work so far in this aspect of public participation.
Although evaluation of participation programmes has
6
begun, it is still minimal when the size of the problem is
considered.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the
participants has not previously been attempted in New
Zealand.
Chapter 3, therefore, outlines the kinds,of
participants who become involved in resource allocation
issues and provides a classification framework for these
individuals and groups.
Criteria for evaluating the
effectiveness of participants are also developed.
Section Two represents the transformation from the conceptual
aspects of public participation to the pragmatic aspects.
Chapter 4 describes and explains the participatory process
in resource allocation which occurred at the Rakaia River
NWCO Hearing.
The Rakaia River provided a suitable case
study as it was accessible, local and many of the types of
conflicts described are apparent in other resource allocation
issues.
The criteria developed in Chapter 3 were applied
to various interest groups.
Section Three is an integration of the other sections, in
an attempt to provide some'guidelines for effective public
participation in resource allocation.
Chapter 5 provides
an analysis of the case study and makes suggestions for the
development of a strategy for public participation.
A
summary of the main points of this study ,is presented in
Chapter 6.
7
CHAPTER 2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The concept of public participation is not new.
existed for centuries in various forms.
It has
Voting, holding
public office and participation in civic groups are some
of the traditional avenues of public involvement.
It was
not until the early 1970s, however, that the contemporary
form of public participation - direct involvement of the
people in the process of decision-mak~ng - really began to
evolve in New Zealand.
Despite the fact that the government
has accepted the increasing need for public input and has
increased efforts to provide opportunities for public
participation, it has not become an entrenched part of
decision-making, nor has it provided the satisfactory
methods and results for achieving dialogue between
decision-makers and the public.
This concept stems from the moral assumption that everyone
has a responsibility and a "right" to express an opinion
about matters which involve them, and to be shown that
"
their views are taken into account.
Although many
theoretical papers have been written on this topic, a
concise and widely-accepted definition does not exist.
One
reason for this lack of definition is proposed by Wengert
(1976):
8
Those urging citizen participation ... perceive
it in different ways, depending on such factors
as position and status, whether they are in
power or out of power, their responsibilities,
their constituencies, their overt or covert
goal s ...
Or, restated more simply, the meaning, function and
importance of public participation varies from culture to
culture, and political system to political system (Sewell &
O'Riordan, 1976).
A further difficulty with definitions arises when considering lithe public".
Because lithe public" is such an amorphous
and la,rgely intangible concept, there is little possibility
of devising a single, universally applicable meaning for
participation.
2.1
Perceptions of public participation
Public participation is seen by many as a major objective
of government, to ensure that all those who might be
affected should have the opportunity to voice their
opinions.
People's perceptions of participation are,
however, numerous.
Participation can be viewed as a sound
and desirable policy to be implemented in as m~ny ways as
possible (Wengert, 1976), at least because those affected
by any decision have a "right" to be heard.
As a policy,
publiG-Participa.tioD.
has the potential to,. allow people a
,---greater role in determining their own future.
Some advocates of participation approach the subject as a
matter of strategy, "a manoeuvre to accomplish other stated
or unstated objectives" (Wengert, 1976).
People with this
9
Citizen Control
8
Delegated Power
Degrees of
Citizen Power
7
Pa rt nE'1 ship
6
Piacati::m
ConsultatIon
Degrees of
Tokenism
4
Informing
3
Therapy
2
Manipula!lon
Nonpartlcipation
1
Figure 2.1:
Arnstein's ladder of citizen particiaption
10
perception may talk about "rights" to participate, but
their "rights" are often euphemisms for pressure tactics
and the manipulations of vociferous minorities for partisan
or self-seeking individuals.
As Arnstein (1969) states:
"citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen
power".
There is, however, a critical difference between
going through the empty ritual bf participation and having
the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.
The fundamental point is that 'participation without redistribution of power is a frustrating process for the powerless.
It allows the powerholders to claim that all sides
were considered, but makes it ppssible for only some of
those sides to benefit.
Invariably it appeases the people,
but maintains the status quo.
Arnstein (1969) has created a ladder of citizen participation
showing various levels of citizen power.
The ladder ranges
from manipulation, a rung which really represents "nonparticipation", through to citizen power where citizens
obtain the majority of decision-making seats or full
managerial power (Figure 2.1).
Obviously the eight-rung
ladder is a simplification, but it helps to illustrate that
there are significant gradations of participation with
corresponding levels of power.
A further school of thought argues that participation
should improve inputs, leading to better and more responsive
decisions.
This perspective of participation as c0mmunica-
tion is connected with Palmer's (19B3) view of participation
as protection.
He feels that the involvement of the
11
community in the planning or decision-making process
should offer the best protection against "bad" decisions.
A final perception is that of participation as a therapeutic
device to overcome alienation and anomie.
This can be an
arrogant and dishonest tactic (Arnstein, 1969).
Its
administrators assume that powerlessness is synonymous with
mental illness.
On this assumption, under a masquerade
of involving citizens is planning, the experts subject the
public to clinical group therapy.
This tactic is used
particularly with underprivileged groups such as racial
groups or the poor.
2.2
Arguments for and against participation
Although resource managers usually speak of "a plan for
resource allocation", what is really meant is "a plan for
the people who use the resource".
When planning for
people then, the government must avoid the attitude of simply
doing good to the public, not only for reasons of political
~niceties
(for example, the ideal of participatory democracy),
but also for reasons of social realities.
That is, unless
a plan is feasible, beneficial, and acceptable to the present
population, it may never reach the implementation stage.
Many participants at hearings have suffereq the cries of
the critics of public participation that "the ignorant
public" knows nbthing of technical matters, that the public
cannot begin to see the needs of future generations, and
will never agree what is best anyway.
Regardless
of what the critics say, public participation
12
in resource allocation can advance the development of
a workable resource scheme.
The potential advantages of public participation have been
discussed by many authors (see, for example, Gresham &
Crothers, 1979;
1983).
White, 1982:
Connor, 1982;
and Palmer,
While some of these advantages are based upon
pragmatic considerations, others relate to ethics and
philosophy.
Some of the major points taken from the
above papers are:
1.
Public participation removes misunderstanding between
decision-makers and the public.
Public participation can provide decision-makers with
valuable factual information and informed opinion.
It
may encourage decision-makers to examine their
assumptions and preconceptions, and to consider a
wider range of alternatives than they might otherwise
have done., At the same time, the public begins to
understand more adequately the true nature of the
problems facing society.
Participation encourages awareness of democratic
processes and allows the public to better understand
the constraints decision-makers 'are subject to.
They
may also learn how to make more effective demands on
the government, or may acquire the resolve to change
their situation.
2.
Participation has an intrinsic value for participants.
Participation may lead to the avoidance or minimisation
13
feel~ngs
of
of alienation and powerlessness, while
ensuring that decisions reflect the interests of
the public and not just the prejudices of the
decision-makers.
3.
Freedom from dependence on professionals.
Participation is seen as a method by which knowledge
and skills can be disseminated more widely and thus,
break the virtual monopoly of expertise held by
professionals.
Indigenous knowledge and expertise
are usually well adapted to the circumstances in
which they develop and, therefore, add a different,
and often more appropriate perspective to that of
th~
4.
professionals.
Participation as a catalyst for further development.
It is",!laimed by White
(~cit.)
that the organisa-
tional patterns created for one project and the
enthusiasm generated by its success, could provide
the means and stimulus for further co-operative work.
There are, however, some arguments against public participation.
1.
These include:
Participation can support inequality or alienation.
Sewell & O'Riordan (1976) state that participation
may fail to reduce political inequality.
Often those
who do participate already enjoy a certain degree of
social and political privilege.
~---
14
2.
Participation is more costly and less efficient than
decision-making without it (Arnstein, 1969).
Public participation is often viewed by decisionmakers as a very time and money consuming exercise.
Although the involvement of the public will lengthen
any decision-making process, the consequence of not
allowing it will be a severely restricted voice.
In some situations, ignoring the public in the initial
stages of development may turn out to be more expensive.
The Motonui development was begun by invoking the
National Development Act 1979.
This Act allows for
major development projects to be declared works of
national importance, and provides for a shortened and
consolidated procedure for obtaining all appropriate
statutory consents (Birch, 1979).
Local Maori
residents became upset that they were not considered
in this decision and appealed to the Waitangi Tribunal
for a full examination of the issues.
This resulted
in a delay of 8 months and a substantial added cost,
most of which could have been avoided had the public
views been incorporated into the decision-making
process.
Public involvement in the consideration of
any project can be a cost-effective and necessary part
of the decision-making process where the objective is
to determine what is in the public interest.
When the
involvement appears too lengthy or unwieldly, the
solution is to redesign the process, not to ignore
the public views.
15
3.
Participation substitutes for democracy.
As expressed by Sir Desmond Heap, a noted London City
solicitor and planning law author (quoted in Palmer,
1983) :
One reason why I have always had my doubts
about the principle of citizen participation
is that it seems to me to strike at the very
roots of elective democracy.
If we do need
to have this new idea, then surely this must
indicate a breakdown in the customary system
of democratic government representation.
4.
Failure of participation to satisfy public requirements.
This is particularly relevant where public demands are
in direct competition, and in these situations,
participatory methods merely provide the forum for
open confrontation.
It can be seen, ,therefore, that although the evidence for
public participation is strong, this process is not without
some claims as to disbenefits.
Sewell & O'Riordan (1976)
note that effective participatory experiments are expensive
and time consuming, requiring highly trained people skilled
in assisting community and group problem solving.
Public
participation,' in .its more contemporary form, is relatively
new and untried.
Time is needed for experiment, trial and
error.
2.3
Public participation - its role in decision-making
Decision-making is the process of choosing from a set of
competing alternatives (Mitchell, 1979).
In resource
allocations, decision-makers have to choose between various
allocation patterns for each resource.
Studies in decision-
16
making seek to ascertain how decisions are made - who
participates, what forces are involved, how the particular
decision was arrived at and why some other alternative was
not selected.
Some of the more well-known approaches
include:
(i)
the economic model which assumes that decisionmakers seek to optimise in the economic sense
(Krutilla & Fisher, 1975);
(ii)
the incremental model which seeks to adapt decisionmaking strategies to the limited cognitive capacities
of decision-makers and to reduce the scope and cost
of information collection.and computation (Lindblom,
1959);
(iii) the upward forming consensus model where the public
discuss and agree upon common objectives which they
in turn entrust their elected representatives to
safeguard and promote into policy guidelines (Maass,
1962); and
(iv)
~
the stress model in which an environmental stress
precipitates action by interest groups and subsequent
interaction of groups and resource managers (Kasperson,
1969;
O'Riordan, 1971).
Moore (1975) has comprehensively reviewed the literature on
decision-making in resource management.
He concluqes that
there exists no generally accepted model which explains how
decisions are made.
Moore considers that any decision
consists of five elements:
situation, participants,
organisation, process and outcome.
It is notable, there-
17
fore, that only the last two of these decision-making
models explicitly incorporate any form of public
tion.
participa~
The upward forming consensus model has the elected
representatives striving to provide the public with the
maximum of information while at the same time protecting
political and economic freedom (O'Riordan, 1970).
In
addition, their job is to translate social goals into
policies which serve as the guides by which executive
agencies weigh alternatives and make decisions.
In the
ideal case, the flow of guidance moves inward and upward,
from the values and preferences of the public through to
the directed actions of the agencies and the planners, as
portrayed in Figure 2.2.
This model is dependent upon the
assumption that the public is aware and wishes to participate.
The stress model visualises a process evolving from a group
struggle or conflict (Figure 2.3).
Environmental stress,
either a resource shortage or deterioration, is perceived
by an interest group.
This stress may be passed directly
to the politician or to a public agency.
If the stress is
acute, outside consultant advice will be sought before a
decision is made.
Since this decision will contain implica-
tions for the amount and distribution of societal costs and
benefits, different groups will respond after the initial
decision in an attempt to modify the manager's choice to
improve their position (Mitchell, 1970).
If the political
pressure exerted at this stage is sufficient to create
political conflict, the decision-maker may seek to resolve
this conflict by requesting his technical advisors to take
a second look at the alternatives in question, including
18
Q)
....u
:-
Q)
....u
'tI
II
~
.....
....0
0
~
r-I
....
)
0
r-I
....
ELECTED
Upward-forming
consensus
PliBLIC CONSENSUS
Figure 2.2:
The upward-forming consensus model of
decision-making •
..................................... ,.
,
,
•
[~~E~}-------..... ·····~······
•....
.....1 .•
D[U~ION
Figure 2.3:
The stress model of decision-making.
19
the possibility of taking no action at all.
This result
is Decision 2 on the diagram, and, according to D'Riordan
(1971), usually incorporates some degree of public opinion.
As it has been acknowledged that participants do have
a role in decision-making processes and the actual decision,
it becomes important to determine exactly who participates,
and their motivation for doing so.
20
CHAPTER 3
WHO PARTICIPATES?
Ideally, the process of decision-making should take into
account the views of all those people who have a legitimate
interest in the matter at issue.
this is not always feasible.
Pragmatically, however,
In fact, it has been noted
that the public tends to be apathetic about most issues
unless they are clearly and directly affected, and unless
they are convinced that their involvement is likely to make
some difference (O'Riordan, 1977).
Burch (1976) identified three factors that make public
participation in natural resources decisions an activity
for the minority.
The first is that the supporters of
natural resources issues have always been part of the
existing system of authority.
"They speak to issues
favoured by the old wealth notables - aesthetic sensitivity,
patriotic nostalgia and good taste" (Burch, 1976).
Secondly, this older tradition is joined not by the working
class, but by the middle class, salaried workers, most of
whom have some tertiary education and are politically
articulate.
The third factor is that there has been a
steady attempt to remove resource and aesthetic issues
from the market system.
This division has resulted in the
creation of new professions.
21
In New Zealand, a further two factors have become apparent.
The participant is invariably European and is most likely to
be male.
These distinctions have reached such proportions
that, in a report on economic and social planning, the New
Zealand Planning Council states:
There are certain groups in society whose
participation in planning up to now has, for
a variety of reasons, been much less significant th~n is, in our view, desirable in
the national interest.
That is why we
reiterate our recommendation that ... the
authorities should pay special attention
to the contribution which women and members
of various ethnic groups can make.
(New Zealand Planning Council, 1976)
Since 1976, more attention has been given to these underrepresented groups with the development of a Ministry for
Women's Affairs and the use of the Waitangi Tribunal as a
forum for traditional Maori considerations.
The importance of these participation tr.ends is not that
the non-participants will not become involved, but rather,
that those who do, are the most likely to have the knowledge,
interest, energy, time and income to invest in environmental
issues.
For a more detailed examination of the participants
and of their motivations, it is convenient to distinguish
between participation by individuals and interest groups.
3.1
Individuals
The individual, as a member of the public, may respond
towards a decision involving the allocation of resources in
one of several ways.
these as follows:
O'Riordan (1972a) has categorised
22
1.
The Unaware
The individual may remain completely unaware or unconcerned.
In such cases, either the issue has no impact on his way of
life or, if it has, he is not bothered by it.
2.
The Unaffected
The individual may recognise the existence of an issue or
conflict situation but may adjust to it.
3.
The Fatalistic
This category includes those people who assume that nothing
can be done and that their own concern plays little part in
the decision-making process.
perceptions of this reaction.
There are two different
The first is the nature-
dominant theme, namely, that whatever is done nature will
always strike back.
The second is the feeling of alienation
from the concept of public participation.
4.
The Active
In some instances the individual initially recognises an
issue or conflict situation and responds with some kind of
action.
It is with these people that participation studies
are primarily concerned, as they are most likely to influence
a decision.
As noted previously, many of these individuals
will participate because they are directly affected.
Others
may hold a more idealistic perspective with visions of a
perfect community and a responsive political process.
These individuals sacrifice large amounts of time and effort
to participate, often for little demonstrable reward.
They
must, however, feel that the benefits received through
participation outweigh the costs.
These benefits may be
23
related to personal ideology, professional advancement,
political aspirations or simply genuine public concern.
3.2
Interest Groups
In the context of resource management, three principal
groupings can be identified:
the politician, the expert
resource manager, and the special interest group.
Social
goals and preferences are identified by the politician who
then authoritatively allocates resources in a manner which
is perceived to advance social welfare the most (Anderson
et a1., 1984).
This
a11~cation
by the politician involves
identifying, refining and evaluating the values, choices
and outcomes.
Kasperson (1969) and O'Riordan (1971, 1972b)
highlight the considerable influence of experts on
politicians during this process.
Interest groups are "collective organisations with a common
goal or interest or activity" (Moore, 1975) whose objective
is to protect or enhance their association's goal.
They
tend to view resource allocation as "a struggle" (Wengert,
1955) and seek access to the decision-making process in
order to influence policy, so that the outcome will benefit
group members.
The recent proliferation of interest groups
worldwide has paralleled the increasing interest in
environmental and resource issues.
new range of literature.
It has resulted in a
Cig1er and Loomis (1983) and
Bercovitch (1984) provide background to much of the theory
of interest groups and group conflict, relating some North
American case studies, while Wilson (1982) highlights the
24
interest group movement in environmental controversies
in New Zealand.
Interest groups are often accused of being the noisy
minority.
This accusation implies that such groups are
not representative of "the public".
All interest groups
are, however, characterised by the following:
1.
they perceive the need to secure decisions in harmony
with or, at least, not in opposition to the group
position;
2.
they view the process as a struggle for the advantage
and position rather than a fight against specific
adversaries and, therefore, any conflict occurs as
a secondary outcome and is not the primary'goal;
3.
their "weapons" are alliances, alignments and friends
able to influence decisions;
4.
their participation may involve protection of the
status quo;
5.
and
those groups with access to information and technical
knowledge have a greater advantage in the struggle
than less informed groups.
(Wengert, 1955 and Fagence, 1977)
Interest groups can be distinguished on the basis of whether
they are public interest groups (governmental) or private
interest groups (sectoral), although there is some overlap
between the groups (Neeson, 1983).
Public groups include
government and quasi-government agencies and local
25
authorities, and function at the national, regional and
local levels.
Kasperson (1969) found it useful to recognise a typology
of private and civic interest groups, based on their
respective motivations.
[private groups have a personal
interest in a decision;
the category includes those who
perceive a threat to their health or economic welfare,
with very little attention being paid to the broader issues.
These interest groups can be very effective because their
interest is motivated by a fear for their own well-being
(O'Riordan, 1976).
Civic interests represent those groups
or individuals who participate out of a moral or intellectual
concern, or those concerned at how resource ,allocation might
affect the local community or region.
aspects of an issue.
They see the broader
Their emphasis is as much on the
changing or improvement of the decision-making process as
in the actual decision.
Consequently, their activities
will be more discrete and policy orientated.
Participants become involved in interest groups for a
particular reason, and \,lhile many believe that they represent
the "public interest" (whatever that may be), this is often
not the case.
Rather, they advance an objective of "self-
interest" which may be presented as the ,regional or national
interest.
On the other hand, the major barrier to group
participation is where "rational" individuals choose not
to bear the participation costs (time and membership)
because they can enjoy the group benefits, such as
favourable legislation, whether or not they join.
This
26
problem has been described as the IIfree-rider li problem
(Olson, 1965).
It is especially serious for large groups,
because the larger the group the less likely an individual
is to perceive his contribution as having any impact on
group success.
3.3
Criteria for effective participation
Having identified the participants involved in the decisionmaking process, it is necessary to examine their role in
a decision.
One of the primary concerns in New Zealand
is that the government and other authorities tend to
invite the public to express their views in a participation
programme, but do not allow them to express any views about
the form the participation should take, or determination
of when the participation should start·and end.
In
addition, the public may not be sure about the objective
of the participation, and whether its involvement will be
of any consequence.
Therefore, the only course left for
the public is to participate as best they can.
As the
public are at a disadvantage in participation programmes,
it becomes essential that their IIbestli is also effective.
Although there is some literature on the effectiveness and
evaluation of participation programmes (see Sewell &
O'Riordan, 1976;
1979;
Teniere-Buchot, 1976;
Connor, 1982;
Sewell & Phillips,
Smith, 1984), there has been little
research of the effectiveness of the participation.
Effectiveness is a value-laden term.
The determination of
effectiveness is, therefore, permeated by value positions
in the form of attitudes, preconceptions, premises and
27
assumptions.
Effectiveness is not completely quantifiable
and its assessment may involve a subjective jUdgement.
As efficiency will be perceived differently by different
people, it would be useful if there were some discernable
criteria which could be used as guidelines by an independent
evaluator of a participation programme.
The criteria that
are proposed below are of a general nature and, as such,
are applicable to most cases.
1.
Achievement of interest group objectives
This is an internal criterion where the evaluator examines
what has been achieved in the light of what the interest
group initially intended to achieve.
Questions the evaluator
may ask to determine this effectiveness are:
What were the aims and objectives of the interest group?
Have these been satisfied?
If not, why not?
An analysis of the participatory methods and approach used
may result from these questions.
An examination of the
appropriateness of the interest group arguments to the
central issue, may also be required.
2.
Influence on a decision
The influence a participant or interest group has on the
decision or decision-making process is
~n
external criterion.
An analysis of this criterion may involve the following:
Did the decision-makers appear to be listening
to the submissions?
Was the group given a fair hearing with equal
time and opportunity to speak?
28
Did any questioning arise from the submission?
Is there any evidence of either the argument
presented or of the organisation in the decision?
If it is decided that the participation has had little or
no effect on the decision-makers, it may again pay to
analyse the approach taken by each interest group.
For
example, the content may have already been presented, it
may be unconvincing, or the style of presentation may be
distracting.
The ability of the members of the interest groups to
co-operate with each other and to present a united front,
may also be an indicator of effectiveness.
Without this
internal co-operation, it is unreasonable to expect the
institutional frameworks and mechanisms to seriously
acknowledge the submission.
Co-operation between similarly
motivated interest groups is also important.
The formation
of coalitions, or public statements of support for other
groups may result in more attention from the decisionmakers.
It is also important that interest is seen to be maintained
by the public and the decision-makers, throughout the
"action".
A display of temporary enthusiasm may detract
from the decision-makers perception of the sincerity of
the group.
It should be noted, however, that it is
extremely difficult to maintain such interest. '
Reiterating Arnstein's (1969) comment that citizen participation is citizen power, it can be said that, ultimately, the
29
principal and fundamental source of power is the ability
of the participant group to present the issue that is
the subject of the participatory exercise, in such a
way as to develop, mobilise and sustain outside support.
This support may be in the form of increased membership,
increased donations and assistance, or media attention.
The more powerful a group, the more likely it is to be
effective.
SECTION
T\~O
APPLICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
30
CHAPTER 4
THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATION:
A CASE STUDY
In preceding chapters of this study, general features of the
processes of public participation and decision-making were
described.
The people who participated were also examined
and criteria were developed to allow evaluation of the
effectiveness of participants in decisions to allocate
resources.
Further elaboration of the issues raised by the
study requires a more detailed examination of the participatory processes in resource management, and especially of
the role participants have in this process.
This examination
is undertaken in the context of a case study of public
participation in the Rakaia River National Water Conservation
Order Hearing.
Public participation is fundamental in resource allocation
cases such as the Rakaia River, since the national and
regional importance of the resource makes it crucial to
determine the opinions and preferences of the affected or
interested community, and to involve them in any decisions.
The case study is-a descriptive and evaluative approach
it illustrates the problem, identifies the participants
and their interests, and judges the effectiveness of their
submissions in the decision-making process.
3~
The Rakaia River was chosen for the case study as the debate
concerning this water resource was both topical and welldocumented.
The conflict between resource conservation and
development was apparent throughout, and the decision-making
process for the reconciliation of this conflict was able to
be traced and evaluated.
The opportunity to attend the
Hearing' and to observe the ,procedure was another factor
considered when selecting a case study.
Attending the
Hearing provided the chance to evaluate the impact the
participants were having on the decision-makers, and to
establish contacts within the interest groups for later
interviews.
The majority of the participants lived within
the Christchurch area, which was essential given the time
and finance available to complete the study.
It should be noted that the value of studies of resource
management decisions lies in the necessity for regular
reviews of the actual decision-making process and of
decisions made.
These studies are worthless if they are
never seen by the decision-makers, or if the study is ignored.
It is the responsibility of the researcher to make criticisms
and constructive comments, and to make these available to
decision-makers for their use in a review, if the comments
are considered relevant.
Unfortunately, there is a problem
with this review procedure, as the decision-makers tend to
rationalise any decisions they make, irrespective of whether
the decision was later shown to be optimal or suboptimal.
4.1
The Rakaia River
The Rakaia is the largest river in Canterbury (Figure 4.1).
32
Figure 4.1:
The Rakaia Ri ve r and Catchment
11-4.t"'/;4~'_
-.-.--.----......
.
---'-',=,,-
~__--+l-_
'-'-'--'-'
AIVER
~-.-.
-.-.
RAKAIA
SCALE
Source:
"250000
Bowen
d
et
al., 1983a
33
It is a braided snow river prone to periodic flooding
over a two kilometre wide shingle bed (Leathers et al.,
1982).
Apart from small abstractions for stockwater,
several irrigation schemes (mostly private), and two small
hydro-electric plants, the Rakaia remains relatively
undeveloped.
In addition, the Rakaia is internationally recognised as
a salmon fishing river and as a wildlife habitat (NWASCA,
1984).
Hughey (1983) states that: "The Rakaia River is
famous for its jetboating, utilised by trout and whitebait
fishermen, and a geographical and scenic entity in its own
right".
Mosley (pers.
~.,
1984) disputes the view that
the Rakaia River is a "scenic entity".
In a 1984 survey,
14 groups of people were asked about their preferences for
river scenery.
Slices of various New Zealand rivers were
shown to the groups.
The people being surveyed were asked
to grade the slide, on a scale of 0 (low) - 9 (high), for
the scenic values of the particular site of the river.
Scores were then collated and conclusions drawn from them.
The results showed that the wide, open bed of the lower
Rakaia was considered "unattractive".
Some parts of the
river, such as the Rakaia Gorge, were regarded as better
than average, while other areas such as the wide upper
valley were considered less attractive than average.
The
headwaters were regarded as scenically attractive, but
markedly less so than other mountain scenery.
Recently, the Rakaia River has been the focus of a vigorous
debate based on a development-conservation conflict, which
34
is illustrated in Figure 4.2.
This diagram illustrates
the competing and complementary demands for water from the
Rakaia River.
There is direct competition between irriga-
tion, which would draw water from the river during the low
flow season, and a variety of conservation and recreation
uses which depend on the continuation of river flows throughout the year.
There is also competition within the irriga-
tion sector between the Lower Rakaia Irrigation Scheme and
the Central Plains irrigation scheme.
The Rakaia already
provides water for various irrigation schemes covering an
area of approximately 35,000 hectares.
It has been
estimated (Williman et al., 1982) that the Rakaia has the
potential to irrigate 150,000 hectares.
If, however, soil
types and the appropriateness of the land for production
are considered, a more realistic. figure would be that of
96,600
hectares (Harrington, 1983).
Figure 4.3 shows
the extent of the existing and proposed schemes.
Only the
Ashburton-Lyndhurst, Fereday, and South Rakaia Irrigation
Schemes are in operation.
The demands for water for irrigation and for electricity are
to a large extent complementary, as has already been
demonstrated by the Rangitata Division Race which provides
water for power generation at the Highbanks Power Station
in winter (when national demand for power is greatest) and
for irrigation in summer.
The conflicts that do exist are
not so much between irrigation and electricity generation
as between irrigation proposals which require decisions now
and power generation proposals that are not scheduled before
the 1990s (Leathers et al., 1982).
35
Irrigation Demand
Conservation a'1d Recreation Demand
Electricity Generation Demand
Figure 4.2:
Competing and complementary demands for
water from the Rakaia River.
36
KEY
$
PO:'~lbiE?
tiead\'\orkS
Source:
Figure 4.3:
+
0 Jt fals
•
bwru.
Lewthwaite, 1984
Existing and proposed irrigation schemes
on the Rakaia River.
37
There is direct competition between the abstraction of
water for irrigation and the preservation of river habitats
that are essential for wildlife and recreation (Figure 4.2) •
In addition it is very difficult to prove that abstraction
of water will result in a measured quantity of environmental
deterioration or a specific reduction in recreational enjoyment.
Conservationists and river users argue that the scenic and
recreational values of the river are of such importance that
they warrant protection.
The National water and Soil
Conservation Organisation (1982), in their draft for a
national inventory of wild and scenic rivers, identified
recreational and biological/scientific parameters of the
Rakaia as being "nationally important".
To be considered
of national importance for recreation, "any river must have
"an-existing water regime that plays an essential and
dominant role in providing an outstanding recreational
experience or range of experiences" (NWASCO,
~.
cit.).
The recreations of jetboating, camping, picnicking, rafting,
canoeing, swimming and salmon-angling, were some of the
activities highlighted by NWASCO under this classification.
The biological/scientific category applies to "river areas
containing exceptional examples of natural,phenomena,
opportunities for scientific study, or highly valued wildlife" (NWASCO,
~.
cit.).
The bird habitats provided by
the shingle beds of the river and the salmon fishery,
were identified as being "nationally important" within this
category.
38
The Crown is deemed to be the owner of the nation's water
resources, but the difficult task of managing and allocating
the Rakaia River's water resources lies with the Regional
Water Board (RWB).
This Board comprises both elected and
appointed members.
The RWB functions in conjunction with
the North Canterbury Catchment Board (NCCB) and, as they
have an identical membership, they are really the same
organisation, but with different responsibilities.
The
NCCB operates under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control
Act 1941, while the RWB operates under the Water and Soil
Conservation Act 1967.
Together they form a multi-functional,
political institution representing the population of North
Canterbury in water and soil management.
This system of
management has been selected by the constitutional decisionmakers (Parliament) as the best means of generating the
maximum social welfare from the use of'the regional water
resources.
Government legislation (particularly the 1981 Amendments to
I
. Conservatl.on
,
,
the Water and SOl.l
Act 1967 ) and pu bl'l.C d'l.SCUSSl.on
Il
of water resources management have increased the pressure for
the NCCB and RWB to examine water resource planning and
management, rather than simple allocation.
To ensure that
allocation decisions are made on the basis of the best
possible information, it became necessary for major Rakaia
River resource investigations to be carried out.
A multi-
disciplinary team, consisting of specialists in the fields
of hydrology, geology, geography, botany, zoology, land
use and agriculture, and sociology, with the aid of
consultants in coastal processes and freshwater biology,
39
was responsible for conducting the investigations.
The
resulting document, after 2 years and costs of around
$600,000, was a four volume resource survey, which became
the basis for the Draft Management Plan.
Following the
publication of the resource survey, submissions were
invited on issues arising from the survey and of relevance
to the Management Plan.
These were examined by the study
team, and incorporated if considered appropriate.
A brief summary of events on the Rakaia River is listed
in Table 4.1.
4.1.1
Background to the Hearing
National water conservation orders were established under the
1981 Amendment to the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967.
~
The purpose of such an order is to include the protection
of wild, scenic and other natural characteristics of a
river, stream or lake, and the protection of the recreational,
fishery
and other instream uses of water.
On June 10 1983, the Minister of Works and Development
received an application for a national water conservation
order covering all the waters of the Rakaia Catchment.
The application for the Rakaia River NWCO was made jointly
by the Ashburton Acclimatisation Society, the North Canterbury
Acclimatisation Society, the Council of South Island
Acclimatisation Societies and the National Executive of
Acclimatisation Societies.
After seeking advice in
accordance with section 20A of the Water and Soil Conserva-
40
Table 4.1 -" Rakaia River: Summary of Events
1935
Work commenced on Rangitata Diversion Race
for irrigation and hydro-electricity generation
1950s Schemes become operative
Valetta Scheme developed
1972
Report on the Water Resources of the Rakaia
River
1973
Government announces revised policy for
encouraging the development of community
irrigation schemes
oct
1974
Management Plan for the Rakaia River released
Altered then approved
NWASCA lists next community schemes to be
undertaken in Canterbury as the Lower Rakaia
and Central Plains Schemes
oct
1981
"Wild and scenic rivers" legislation
adopted (Water and Soil Conservation
Amendment Act 1981)
April
1982
Pamphlet from NCCB enco~raging public
participation on matters which should be
investigated and the scope of the resource
survey
June
1982
Submissions to the NCCB pamphlet close
~1arch
1983
NCCB release "The Rakaia River and Catchment:
A Resource Survey"
April
1983
"An Interim Report on the Groundwater
Resources of the Central Plains" released
June
1983
Minister of Works (Friedlander) receives
application for a national water conservation
order in respect of the Rakaia River and its
Tributaries
Aug
1983
NCCB publishes an issues and options paper
for the Rakaia River Catchment and adjacent
plains
Nov
1983
Draft management plan published
Dec
1983
NWCO Hearing by NWASCA
April
1984
Draft NWCO released by NWASCA
May
1984
Objections to draft NWCO lodged
Oct
1984
Planning Tribunal Hearings
41
tion Act 1967, the Minister decided that it be considered
by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority
(NWASCA) as an application for a national water conservation
order (NWASCA, 1984).
The Authority gave public notice of
\
the application, inviting written submissions and objections.
The Minsiter of Works, 59 local authorities or organisations
and 186 individuals responded.
In order to "obtain further
information and to facilitate the exchange of views"
(NWASCA,1984), it was decided to conduct a public hearing.
This followed the precedent set by the Motu and Ahuriri
Rivers NWCO applications.
The Rakaia Hearing was held in
Christchurch from December 6-14, 1983, with 88 witnesses
giving evidence before the NWASCA Committee.
The Hearing was supposed to be an informal, although
structured presentation of all relevant information.
Each
group was allowed one representative to speak on their
behalf.
Most of the interest groups lacked experience at
hearings and chose to be represented by legal counsel.
Questioning of witnesses on points of clarification was
permitted, but cross-examination was not.
Any questions
had to be directed through the chairman of the committee
by the representative.
This mode of questioning created
some problems, particularly with the technical evidence.
Although the representative had no difficulty asking a
question prepared by an "expert" from within the group, he
invariably did not have the knowledge to follow on, and
consequently, many opportunities for relevant questioning
were lost.
42
Collection of scientific information concerning the Rakaia
River was primarily conducted by the government departments,
that is, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF),
Ministry of Works and Development
Electricity Department (NZED).
(~MD)
and the New Zealand
In addition, the NCCB's
resource survey provided a detailed examination of the
catchment and adjacent plains.
In all cases, the source of
funding for the research was the public coffers, derived
from departmental allocations from the government.
Interpretation of scientific evidence in a sociopolitical
context such as this, is value-laden and, therefore,
equires a subjective evaluation.
It is generally preferred
by decision-makers, however, as there are usually objective
on which the evidence is based.
Non-governmental interest groups either had to take
advantage of the scientific research by placing a subpoena
on the individual researchers, or, alternatively, had to
fund their own research.
Some groups did not present any
scientific evidence at all, relying instead on members'
opinions, or statements from people with long-stan?ing
experience.
Opinion is distinguished from a scientific
approach since it is an expression of one's thoughts and
feelings, rather than the testing of hypotheses.
Subjectivity is, therefore, an inherent feature of opinion.
The interpretation of any submission which contains opinion
presents problems for the decision-makers.
Although
subjectivity does not necessarily invalidate a submission
it does tend to isolate the activities of the participants,
43
and cut them off from the decision-makers.
There are two means by which the validity of information
presented as opinion can be assessed by the decision-makers.
First, the basis of the evidence must be examined.
The
opinion may be based on long experience or strong feelings.
Second, opinion can be validated, and to some extent made
objective, by corroboration;
that is, where the same or
similar opinion is expressed by a number of participants.
4.2
Participation in water and soil legislation
An essential pre-requisite for participation is the
existence of the opportunity for the public to participate
within the statutes.
It is important, therefore, to
/
examine current statutes for their public participation
content.
Water and soil legislation in New Zealand
curren"tly comprises two principal acts, the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 and the Water and Soil
Conservation Act 1967.
Both Acts have been extensively
amended and many of these amendments contain important
provisions which have not been incorporated into the
original Acts.
The opportunities for public involvement
in the water-related aspects of these procedures will now
be briefly outlined.
Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.
This Act
promotes soil conservation and is to provide control
measures for erosion and floods, and for the adoption of
"appropriate land use practices"
(Conway, 1979).
The
44
main opportunity for public participation is by means of
objections to proposed flood control works.
Only
occupiers or owners of the land involved may object, and
the objection must be in the form of a written submission
CMWD, 1981).
Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967.
The objectives of
this Act are best summarised by reference to the long
title of the Act, viz.
"An Act to promote a national policy
in respect of natural water and to make better provision for
j
the conservation, allocation, use and quality of natural
water, ••. and for promoting and controlling multiple uses
of natural water •.• ".
Under this Act, there are three
broad areas which involve direct inputs from the public.
1.
General Water Right Administration.
Any person may object to the granting of a water right by
a body other than the Crown and may accordingly have
standing to appeal against a grant (Sections 24(4), 25).
However, although any person may object to the local Water
Board against the granting of a water right to the Crown,
the right of appeal to the Planning Tribunal is limited to
"any Board, public authority, or any person which or who
claims to be detrimentally affected by the decision"
(Section 23(5».
All applications for water rights are
notified in the Public Notices column of local newspapers.
2.
Water Classification and Quantity.
Objections to the classification of a body of water may be
lodged with NWASCA.
(Prior to April 1, 1984, the
45
responsibility for hearing objections was with the Water
Resources Council.)
Under Section 14.3(0), the setting
of maximum and minimum lake levels and river flows is
determined by NWASCA "after consultation with representatives known to the Authority ••• "
There is no provision
for formal objections or appeals.
3.
Water Allocation Planning.
It is a principal function under this Act to " ••• examine
problems concerning, and make plans in respect of (i) The allocation and quality of natural water."
(Section 14 (3) (a) ) •
There is, however, no statutory basis for the writing of
water allocation plans.
Those Catchment Boards that do
write these plans usually begin with a preliminary or draft
plan which is published and then publicly notified with
comments and objections invited.
In the context of the Rakaia case study, the 1981 Amendment
to this Act is especially important as it deals specifically
with water conservation orders and notices.
Although this
procedure allows for participation from "any body or person
affected by the application" for a NWCO and "any body or
person representing some relevant aspect of the public
interest" (Sections 20B(2) (d) and (3», Taylor (1983) finds
that "the route to national water conservation orders is
proving long, tedious, expensive and very frustrating."
He continues, "the hearings so far held before the NWSASCA
are, in my opinion, a sham.
The organisation's approach to
conducting hearings is disgraceful .... "
46
This comment does suggest that although the opportunity
for public involvement is present in this procedure,
there is some dissatisfaction amongst the public, regarding
the particular methods used.
The full procedure established
by the Act is shown in Figure 4.4.
4.3
The participants
This section focusses on the participants from the Rakaia
River NWCO Hearing and the ways in which they viewed themselves - their motivations, role in the Hearing, interactions with other participants and their overall
perceptions about this process for making decisions about
the allocation of resources.
It must be realised,
however, that this Hearing is only one formal action in
a long, ongoing social-political process.
The case study
would perhaps be clarified further by explaining the
process as a whole, but time constraints prohibited this.
Aspects which would be of particular interest include the
interactions both within and between groups, the "power
plays" by the various governmental and private interest
groups and the attitudes of the decision-makers to the
different groups. It would also have been interesting to
follow the decision-making process and the inclusion of
the public within this process, through to the final
decision.
The individuals and groups participating in the Rakaia
River debate had varying degrees of interest.
They all,
however, had a common objective - to ensure that the
allocation of the Rakaia water be in the "public interest " .
47
APPLICA TlON
o
MINISTER OF WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT
For NATIONAL Water
Conservation Order
For LOCAL Water
Conservation Notice
NWand SCA
NWand SCA
REGIONAL WATER BOARD
PUBLICLY NOTIFY
APPLICATION
PUBLICLY NOTIFY
APPLICATION
I
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
MINISTER
APPLICANT ADVISED
and PUBLICLY NOTIFIED
OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING TRIBUNAL
_
I
HEARING BY PLANNING TRIBUNAL
declined
MINISTER
APPLICANT
ADVISED
GOVERNOR GENERAL
NWCO MAOE BY ORDER IN COUNCIL
Source:
Anon, 1982.
Figure 4.4:
The full procedure for national and local
conservation orders as established by the
1981 Amendment to the Water and Soil
Conservation Act 1967.
48
It is this perception of the public interest by the various
participants which leads to the water allocation conflict.
Although submissions on the NWCO application for the Rakaia
River numbered 240 (187 of these coming from individuals,
often under the direction of a major public interest group) ,
only those
w~o
gave evidence at the Hearing will be
discussed here.
These people, through their participation
at the Hearing, displayed a desire to inform and perhaps
influence the decision-makers.
The participants have been
classified according to the framework developed by
Kasperson (1969) and extended by Neeson (1983).
Like
any classification, subjectivity is apparent in this
framework:
some overlap exists between the various
categories, particularly between the two sectoral groups.
The basis for differentiation between these categories was
the objectives of each interest group.
Those groups with
personal interests in the Rakaia River issue were placed
in the private interest group category, whereas groups with
moral or intellectual concerns were placed in the civic
category.
For example, recreational users are more
motivated towards self-satisfaction than the more civic
orientation of, say, the Nature Conservation Council.
4.3.1
Classification and description
'
The framework outlined in Chapter 3 and extended by
Neeson (1983) is applied to the participants of the Rakaia
River NWCO Hearing.
This framework of participants is
shown in Table 4.2.
Each grouping will now be discussed
in greater detail.
Table 4.2:
Participants - Rakaia River NWCO Hearing
Participants
Individuals
Governmental
Commission for
the Environment
Aorangi United
Council
Ashburton Borough
Council
MWD
Canterbury Chamber
of Commerce
Malvern County
Council
MAF
NZED
Wildlife Service
Canterbury United
Council
North Canterbury
Catchment Board
Sect6ral
(Federated Farmers
" t"10n ASSOC1a
" t "10ns
*((I rr1ga
(N.Z. Institute of
( Agricultural Science
* NZ Jet Boat Assn.
* NZ Salmon Anglers
* NZ Salmon Company
Acclimatisation Societies
(Environmental Defence
( Society
*~Rakaia River Association
(Royal Forest and Bird
( Protection Society
Nature Conservation
Council
Save the Rivers Campaign
(Soil Conservation Council
* (Water Resources Council
*
Indicates interest groups interviewed.
50
1.
Individuals
There were nine individuals who gave evidence at the
Hearing.
Their views covered the whole range presented
at the Hearing - from total preservation of the river
through to unlimited supply of water for irrigation.
With the exception of two of these people, all were
safeguarding their own interests in the guise of the
"public interest".
Of
th~
other two, one argued for the
river "as part of the natural inheritance New Zealanders
and our children absorbed as they grew" (The Press, 9.12.83),
while the other made a mockery of the Hearing and attempted
to show that the whole process was farcical.
The evidence tended to be based on opinion rather than
scientific results and often played on the social
conscience of the NWASCA committee.
well-being were emphasized.
Issues of social
Examples of such statements
as:
"Why should this river - the last of its kind be exploited for the profit of a few?"
"Why should this generation assume that its perceived
desires must be satisfied by whittling down the
inheritance of those who follow us, whose values
and needs may be different?"
"Intensification of farming with,the help of
irrigation could provide jobs to the Canterbury
region" •
(Quoted in The Press, 10.12.83)
51
2.
Governmental
(a)
National Organisations
The national organisations again showed a diverse range of
objectives, from the resource development orientation of
the Ministry of Works and Development and the New Zealand
Electricity Department, to the biological concerns of the
Wildlife Service.
Between these concerns, lies the
Commission for the Environment;
an organisation which
usually presents a relatively neutral submission.
The
Commission speaks for the unrepresented majority, and
makes recommendations for changes or consideration to the
promoting organisation.
There is no statutory obligation
on the department promoting a project, however, to
implement the Commission's findings.
It is rare that one government department will oppose a
project promoted by another.
However, the multifunctional
organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
had its component agencies in conflict.
For example,
Fisheries Research Division was presenting the substantive
evidence on the amount of water required for fish survival,
while the Advisory Services Division, Animal Research
Division and the Agricultural Economics Division
developed an irrigation simulation model for the Rakaia
area, and postulated the effects lack'of the water would
have on agriculture.
(b)
Regional Organisations
Three of the regional bodies who participated were
relatively neutral in their stances.
The united Councils
52
both spoke briefly and outlined the benefits, from both
preservation and development, to their regions from the
River.
The North Canterbury Catchment Board participated
as a regulatory body, as it has the responsibility for
implementing the water allocation decided upon.
In
addition, the. NCCB tabled three reports - the resource
survey (Bowden et al., 1983a), the groundwater report
'-
(Bowden et al., 1983b) and the draft management plan
(Cathcart et al., 1983), which were the result of investigations covering all aspects within the Catchment.
The
fourth body - the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce - viewed
the further development of farming, including horticulture,
as essential to the region's growth and as an important
provider of employment.
(c)
Local Organisations
The Malvern County Council viewed their primary objective
as the management of the county for the prosperity and
well-being of the predominantly rural community and,
therefore, strongly supported irrigation of the plains
land.
Economic stimulation, increased population and
improved services were recognised as indirect economic and
social benefits to the country from any irrigation
developments.
The Ashburton Borough Council emphasised
in general terms the importance of
the~ural
hinterland
to the social and economic base of the Borough, but had
no specific objectives relating to the management of the
Rakaia River.
53
3.
sectoral
(a)
Private Organisations
This group encompasses those activist organisations which
consider themselves to be potentially advantaged or
disadvantaged by selected uses of the water. Federated
Farmers, the Irrigation Societies and the New Zealand
~
Institute of Agricultural Science presented their submissions together.
They supported local and regional
economic development through increased agricultural
production.
The New Zealand Jet Boat Association
(N~JBA)
and the New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association (NZSAA)·
presented separate submissions, but both had the common
interest of recreation. Their arguments were based on the
"quality of life" concept.
The New Zealand Salmon
Company had similar motivations, although they also had
the vitality of their business to defend.
(b)
Civic Organisations
This was the largest and most diverse category, incorporating groups with interests at the national, regional and
local levels.
Four of these groups were government
formulated bodies, while the Acclimatisation Societies,
the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (RF&BPS)
and the Environmental Defense Society (EDS) have
"professional" actors.
The EDS, RF&BPS'and the Rakaia
River Association (RRA) presented their evidence under
one counsel, as did the Councils of NWASCA.
The Acclima-
tisation Societies, being the applicants, had by far the
greatest volume of evidence, having subpoenaed experts
in the fields of wildlife, fisheries, town planning and
district schemes, as well as fishermen.
54
4.3.2
Effectiveness of participants
Based on the criteria suggested in Chapter 3, that is,
the achievement of interest group objective and the
influence of the interest group on the decision, it is
possible to examine the effectiveness of some participants
at the Rakaia River NWCO Hearing.
Only selected sectoral
organisations were chosen for an examination of their
effectiveness, as they are the groups which incorporate
the private interests of "the public".
The groups to
,
be discussed here are indicated in Table 4.2.
Representa-
tives of these groups provided most of the information
during interviews as outlined in ·Chapter 1, although
\
additional information form both observations at the
Hearing and documentary data was also used in the analysis.
1.
Federated Farmers, Irrigation Societies and the
New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science
The Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated was
initially formed in 1899.
Since then, provincial branches
have formed throughout the country.
There are 22 sub-
branches within the Canterbury province, with a membership
of approximately 1500 farmers.
The Branches of Ellesmere,
High Country, Lauriston, Mid Canterbury and Pendarves were
involved in the Hearing.
There were 12 Canterbury Irrigation Societies represented,
in addition to the New Zealand Irrigation Society.
These
groups were formed as a result of the farmer's perception
of the need for irrigation for increased farm productivity.
The aims of these groups in relation to the Hearing were
55
to ensure that water is available to every farmer, and to
enlist farmer support for irrigation.
They hoped to be
allocated enough water to irrigate 100,000 hectares.
Although they only received enough water in the decision
to fully irrigate 70% of this land, they are hopeful that
co-operation with the NZED (viz.,
regulation of outflows
from Lake Coleridge), will release the rest of the water.
The farmers of the area seem well informed about the
potential gains through irrigation so these organisations
have been successful in accomplishing their aims.
The importance of a well-informed and co-operative membership of the Federated Farmers, Irrigation Societies, and
the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science, will
become important as the Rakaia conflict progresses through
the Planning Tribunal and possibly onto a High Court
Appeal.
Such support should ensure continued enthusiasm
for the duration of the hearings.
The influence of these three groups on the decision was
considerable.
Large sections of the transcript from the
evidence of one well-known and influential Canterbury
farmer were quoted in the Draft Conservation Order.
There
was also a clear acknowledgement, by the NWASCA Committee,
of the importance of irrigation on the Canterbury Plains.
It is possible that these groups were over-represented at
the Hearing.
By presenting 17 witnesses, with a further
15 witnesses submitting evidence to be considered by the
Committee, these groups appeared to be playing the "numbers
56
game".
With the limited time allocation per witness,
obviously the more witnesses, the greater the time
available to present your case.
This illustrates the
importance of understanding the rules of the Hearing.
The counsel for these organisations was able to take
full advantage of the opportunities to express their
views.
The evidence submitted to the NWASCA Committee was
primarily based on the opinion of members, with farmers
relating how the lack of water would affect them.
Scientists from the Institute of Agricultural Science
provided some scientific credibility to these arguments.
One witness for these groups gave evidence on the
detrimental effects water abstraction could have on the
botanical features of the river bed (Connor, 1983).
This appears to have been an attempt to present an
unbiased and broad-minded submission to the decisionmakers.
The coalition of the three organisations guided by one
counsel gave the impression of a unified opposition and
the consolidation of funds ensured that the finance was
available for a thorough
presentatio~.
Overall, these groups were effective.
Not only were they
heard, but their concerns were considered and incorporated
into the decision.
During the interviews, they expressed
satisfaction with the decision and saw no need to appeal
to the Planning Tribunal, although they did express the
desire to be reheard should an appeal be lodged.
57
2.
The New Zealand Jet Boat Association
The NZJBA was'formed in 1963 with the primary objective of
ensuring the maintenance of at least one navigatable
South Island river.
There are now over 2,000 members
nationally, with the National Executive based in Christchurch.
A minimum flow of 125 cumecs was asked for as this
would provide a 0.3 metre clearance within the river bed
at all times.
This objective was not. satisfied, with the
Draft Conservation Order setting minimum flows of 80 cumecs
from June to August, and 90 cumecs from September to May.
The NZJBA was ambivalent about their effectiveness as
participants.
Although sections of their submission had
been directly copied into the decision, they felt they had
received an unfair hearing.
As the final participants,
they were given only ten minutes to present their evidence,
none of which had been heard before, and questioning on
the issues it raised was minimal.
The decision-makers
appeared totally uninterested in the submission.
After
attending eight full days of evidence, the Committee.
appeared to want to close the Hearing as soon as possible.
Even an experienced organisation could not have avoided
this occurrence, the timing was simply unfortunate, and
the Committee had no desire to extend the Hearing.
The NZJBA is giving financial support to the Rakaia River
Association for their appeal, but feel disillusioned with
the process, and
will not be directly involved.
They also
expressed concern about validifying the minimum flows
required by jet boats for passage upstream.
58
3.
The New Zealand Salmon Angler's Association
The NZSAA is a nationwide organisation, formed in 1972,
with the aim of conserving and enhancing salmon fisheries.
The group presently has a membership of approximately
1,000, the majority of whom live in Canterbury.
The
objective for participating in the Rakaia Hearing was to
preserve the
~iver
in its existing state to maintain "the
outstanding value of the fishery"
(Hughey, pers. comm., 1984).
with the acknowledgement by the NWASCA Committee of irrigation as an important use for some of the water, the NZSAA
did not achieve this aim.
The NASAA were viewed as "radicals and extremists" by other
organisations and by the decision-makers.
Their demand for
a minimum flow of 200 cumecs was by far the greatest of all
organisations who specified a set level.
The President of
this group personally felt that the minimum flow was
excessive, but, as the representative for the NZSAA, was
prepared to arrange and present this submission (Hughey,
pers. comm., 1984).
One reason for presenting this
extremist view was that it made the Applicant's claims for
minimum flows seem more reasonable.
This flow regime also
corresponded with the NZSAA President's view of the
instream water requirements for the river.
Although the NZSAA felt they received a fair hearing from
the Committee in terms of time and questioning, they
appeared to have been unfairly and unnecessarily singled
out and criticised in the decision.
from the Committee is as follows:
A typical comment
59
It is impossible from the work of Dr Mosley,
to see how Mr Hu~hey could have derived his
recommended 200 m /s minimum flow to guard
against water temperature problems.
(NWASCA, 1984).
It is recognised that Mr. Hughey obtained his figures from
secondary sources rather than primary research.
It does
seem, however, that there is a need to conform to the
decision-maker's approach, and suggests that the decisionmakers were more influenced by evidence presented by
IIscientists ll rather than IIlaypeople ll
•
An appeal was lodged by" the New Zealand Salmon Angler's
Association and it was hoped that there would be more
co-operation with the Acclimatisation Societies. Any form
of co-operation with the Rakaia River Association, a group
with similar motivations and objectives, was eliminated due
to inter-organisational conflict, particularly between the
Presidents of these organisations.
This group does not appear to have been effective at the
Hearing according to the criteria.
They have not satisfied
their objectives, and have had little positive effect on the
decision.
They were responsible, however, for making the
public aware of the conflict before the NWCO appliqation.
They printed posters and bumper stickers requesting people
to "Save the Rakaia ll
Christchurch.
,
which are still displayed on cars in
This suggests that the outside support for
the organisation, and for the views it promoted, was widespread.
In terms of Arnstein's (1969) comments about
citizen power, it must be assumed that the NZSAA increased
their power significantly, and may be a stronger force to
contend with in the future hearings.
60
4.
The New Zealand Salmon Company
The New Zealand Salmon Company was formed in 1980 as a
private firm with the aim of production of salmon in the
Rakaia River for both financial and conservation purposes.
For the purpose of the Hearing, the Executive Director
attempted to place a dollar value on the Rakaia's
instream uses, and to emphasise that the "value of the
River's water is not only on the paddocks" (Crowe, pers.
comm., 1984).
A minimum flow of 123 cumecs was requested
at the Hearing, but the Company was reasonably happy with
the flows set by the NWASCA Committee as they feel these
are adequate for the fish to return upstream.
An additional aspect of this organisation's participation
is that five jobs and a potential of
$5~
million in some
overseas earnings would be lost if the low flows were
to exclude the fish (Crowe, pers. comm., 1984).
The Company presented only one witness, and although the
Committee appeared to be paying attention, no questions
were asked of the witness.
\
There is no specific mention
of the Company in the Draft.Conservation Order, as many of
the issues that arose from this submission were incorporated
in a general section on the Rakaia fishery.
This organisation is different from the other conservation
organisations as, like the Federated Farmers, a business
is involved.
If too much water is abstracted, and the
salmon could not return to the hatchery, the Company would
61
cease to exist.
While the participatory approach seemed
ineffective, the overall goals of the Company were achieved.
5.
The Rakaia River Association
The RRA began in 1979 with 20 members and the sole purpose
of preserving the existing flow levels and patterns of the
Rakaia River.
Since this time, membership has increased
to over 300 people.
None of the members had previous
experience in hearings, although the President of this
group had observed in the NWCO Hearing of the Ahuriri
River, and had been involved in more radical participation
as a university student.
The NWASCA compromise did not suit the RRA.
They had hoped
to "save the river" (Wyn-Williams, pers. comm., 1984)
by maintaining the existing flow patterns.
There was no mention of this group, nor of the evidence
they presented in the Draft Conservation Order.
This
omission could be the result of presenting evidence based
mainly on opinion reasoning.
The significance of an
emotional argument lies in the reception it receives from
members of the decision-making body.
The decision-makers
appeared to prefer scientific evidence as they could treat
it objectively.
The RRA did receive considerable media attention, primarily
through the actions of its President.
This attention
resulted in the support from Sir Peter Scott, Director of
the World Wildlife Fund.
Influential experts and experienced
62
campaigners such as this, must have an effect on the
quality of the submission in the future.
This group also printed bumper stickers, again encouraging
the public to "Save the Rakaia", and distributed them
throughout Christchurch. This action shows a recognition of the
importance of involving the public and of the links
between the Committee and the public.
It served to include
the public and influence them as people as well as the
Committee.
Having public support will become more
important as the Rakaia River debate continues.
The more
support a group has in terms of both finance and manpower,
the more likely they are to maintain enthusiasm and
commitment over the duration of the decision-making process.
There was internal conflict within this group, and obvious
external conflict with the New Zealand Salmon Angler's
Association.
A coalition was formed with the Environmental
Defense Society and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society.
This proved to be a good combination, with the
EDS dealing with legal matters, the RF&BPS with the wildlife issues, and the Rakaia River Association with the
River and its recreational and scenic attributes.
6.
Save the Rivers Campaign
The Save the Rivers Campaign is another national organisation
which was formed prior to the 1981 election in an attempt
to force decision-making authorities to consider the
recreational and conservation aspects of water resources.
More recently, they have moved into the preservation argument
63
and are attempting to save remaining rivers.
Their role
in the Rakaia River Hearing was one of support to other
conservation-orientated groups rather than the presentation
of information.
They were not mentioned in the Draft
Conservation Order and were, therefore, not effective in
influencing the decision-makers or the decision.
Conclusions on effectiveness of the participants
In terms of the criteria for judging effectiveness, the
Federated Farmers and associated organisations were the
most effective at the Rakaia River NWCO Hearing.
They
concentrated on only one issue- the need for irrigation
for increased agricultural production.
They were directed
in their submission by counsel who had previous experience
in hearings of this nature. Technically qualified people
strengthened their argument.
In contrast, the conservation oriented groups were less
effective, both in
satisfying their own objectives and
in making an impression on the decision-makers.
These
groups often took a less conventional approach, presenting
evidence which was outside the decision-maker's experience.
They had little experience in the hearing situation and
tried to tackle broad issues.
4.3.3
Ge.neral comments regarding the Hearing
This section incorporates the more general factors regarding
the public participation process of the NWCO Hearing.
Some of these were expressed by participants during inter-
64
views, while the others became apparent during the examination of the process.
These factors can be divided into
three main categories.
1.
Biases
Many of the conservation orientated participants perceived
that the Hearing was biased towards the development side
of the debate.
They considered that the amount of time
given to the Crown (primarily MWD, MAF and the NZED) to
present their case, far exceeded the time given to the
other participants.
It should be noted, however, that the
Crown was providing much of the scientific evidence and a
longer period was therefore required to explain the
technical nature of the evidence.
The Crown financed all
of the research which was presented by their case, while
other scientific evidence (for example, the NZJBA survey
and the NZSAA survey) was financed purely by the participants.
The NCCB and RWB staff members were involved in discussions
with a NWASCA Committee adviser, particularly concerning
the future of the Lake Heron area of the Rakaia Catchment.
The discussions were, however, only at the staff level and
the Board was not involved in the decision-making.
There was a further claim by participants that the process
was lIelitist li as only certain groups and individuals could
afford the time and money to participate.
proble~
This is not a
specific to this Hearing, however, as it is a
common complaint of most people who become involved in
participatory procedures of this nature.
65
The NWASCA Committee was also the subject of some criticism.
Although no-one doubted the integrity and experience of the
six members, many found it hard to believe that an impartial
judgement could come from a committee consisting predominantly of retired farmers and ex-National Government
politicians.
The Committee members were mostly over 60
years of age and this was the cause of further concern
by participants.
One participant commented that the age
of the members would at least safeguard them from having
to live for long with the consequences of their decision!
The legislative process of a NWCO application, outlined
ea+lier in this chapter, creates a serious conflict of
interest in the Rakaia debate.
Briefly, the conflict is:
The application for a conservation order is made to the
Minister of Works.
He then refers the application to
NWASCA, of which the Minister is the chairman.
The Authority
recommends to the Minister whether the application should be
treated as an application for a national or local conservation order.
The Minister considers the recommendation of
the Authority (of which he is chairman), and, in the Rakaia
Case, referred it back to the Authority for hearing.
The
MWD, as well as co-ordinating the Crown case, logically
favoured the issue of water rights for the irrigation
schemes (which they will be taking over), but which
fundamentally conflicts with the conservation order
applied for.
After the Hearing, a draft order was forma-
lised and submitted as a recommendation to the Minister of
Works.
The value of this expensive exercise must be
questioned when it is realised that the MWD was the main
66
proponent qf the proposed Rakaia irrigation schemes,. and
that the l-Unister of that same department makes a decision
on the conservation order application.
2.
Participation strategies and the decision-making
process
Several participants admitted manipulating data and
presenting it in a more favourable manner.
One paper
(Mosley, 1982) which was used as evidence in different
ways by five other groups, was later found to contain
incorrect segments and unwritten methodology and assumptions (Anderson et a1.,
1984).
Mosley was quoted many
times in the Draft Conservation Order, showing that
considerable attention was paid to his work and therefore,
that his paper was a major source of information for the
Committee.
It is obvious that the procedure followed at
the Hearing does not allow for the justification of
evidence and, therefore, permits unreliable data to be
presented.
A further point of interest is that Mosley
undertook the research while working for the MWD and was
presenting his submission for the Crown.
These comments relate to other comments made earlier.
regarding the Committee's preference for scientific,
"objective" evidence over opinion, the influence that
evidence presented by "scientists" has over evidence
presented by "laypeop1e ll and the suggested developmental
bias of the NWASCA Committee.
The number of the conservation-orientated participants,
although seemingly unimportant in this decision, will have
67
a definite effect in the long term.
The more conserva-
tionists that are involved, the longer the involvement
with the Rakaia, and, therefore, irrigation developments
will be delayed.
Following the NWASCA Hearing, appeals
were lodged with the Planning Tribunal and these were
heard in october 1984.
If the Planning Tribunal allows
any volume of water to be extracted for irrigation, it is
probable that some participants will take this matter to
the High Court and appeal on a point of law.
If the High Court allows abstraction of water, any water
right application may be forwarded and will be subject to
objections to be heard in yet another hearing.
Appeals
on water rights are heard by the Planning Tribunal and·
subsequently by the High Court.
Thus, the development of
the proposed irrigation schemes could 'be delayed for many
years, during which time changes in government priorities
could occur.
Already, with the advent of the Labour
Government in New Zealand, the 1973 policy encouraging
the development of large government-subsidised irrigation
schemes, and of smaller community schemes, has been superceded, placing the burden of costs on the farmers (The
Press, 18.10.84).
Forseeing these progressions, many
participants were discouraged by the futility of the NWASCA
Hearing.
3.
Media
It is clear that the media have an important role both in
disseminating information upon which opinion and attitudes
may be formed, and in constructively contributing to the
68
fashioning of those attitudes and opinions.
Coverage
of the NWASCA Hearing and of the ensuing decision,
was thorough.
Daily newspaper columns in both the Press
and the Christchurch Star reported the happenings of the
Hearing regularly, while onenational periodical featured
the Hearing (Young, 1984).
The local television' news
programme mentioned the Hearing while i t was in progress,
and discussed the affects of the Draft Conservation
Order with various parties once it was announced. Radio
coverage followed a similar course.
There was, however, no real chance to use the newspaper
as a mediator between the conservation and development
sides in an attempt to "air" the views.
Both local news-
papers refused to publish letters from the public on this
issue while the Hearing was in progress.
The Rakaia did
receive some attention at a later date, when it became a
local election issue (The Press, 27.6.84 - 14.7.84).
From the above description of the Rakaia River study in
resource allocation, a number of points arise for
discussion.
The decision-making process, the incorporation
of effective public participation and the participants
will now be re-examined in the light of lessons learned
from this study.
This will, in turn, point to any changes
which might be required to improve public participation
in decision-making.
SECTION THREE
INTEGRATION OF THE THEORY AND PRACTICE
OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
69
CHAPTER 5
TOWARDS A STRATEGY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The discussion of public participation in resource allocation and the development of criteria to evaluate the
effectiveness of participants as described in Section One,
provide the conceptual foundations of this study.
These
concepts were applied to the Rakaia River National Water
Conservation Order Hearing in Section Two.
It is now
necessary to integrate both the concepts and the application in an attempt to formulate a strategy for more
effective public participation in resource allocation.
5.1
Decision-making
Two quite different models of decision-making were explained
and illustrated in Chapter Two.
The upward-forming
consensus model shows the flow of guidance moving upward,
from the public through the elected representatives to the
administrators.
This model represents the ideal situation,
and was the procedure sought by the decision-makers in the
Rakaia River NWCO Hearing.
The public had their chance
to express their opinions which were given to their representatives to present to the decision-makers.
In the complicated existing system of resource allocation
and management, however, the decision-makers become some-
70
what removed from public opinion and are protected either
by layers of bureaucratic insulation and "red tape", or
by the ethics of their professions.
A sense of technical,
scientific superiority also exists, where public interest
groups are considered ignorant, emotional or representing
minority interests.
Thus, it would appear that a more
realistic model of flows of decisions in resource management would be the reverse of those described.
Directives
appear more often to flow downwards to the public who are
usually faced with a resource use decision after it is
made, and not inf!equently after it is implemented, as in
the case of the Clutha River Hydro Development in Central
Otago.
In this example, the preliminary works on the dam
site were initiated before water rights were obtained.
If
people are threatened by a restricted choice such as this,
they will respond through protest and action.
In reality, the Rakaia River NWCO Hearing followed a
process more along the lines of Kasperson (1969) and
O'Riordan's (197l) stress model.
Environmental stress was
perceived by fishermen and recreationists.
These people
either approached already formed interest groups, or
initiated new groups, and presented the Minister of Works
with a NWCO application.
Following the NWCO Hearing by
a NWASCA Committee, the first decision was announced.
Many of the interest groups appealed this decision and
another hearing, with the Planning Tribunal as decisionmakers, began.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the flow of decisions
of this model for the Rakaia River.
71
FIGURE 5.1
FLOW OF DECISIONS FOR WATER ALLOCATION IN
THE RAKAIA RIVER
water resources of
the Rakaia River
~
~
Environmental stress
~
~
Fishermen and recreationists
perceive the need to prevent
large scale abstraction of
water for irrigation
~
~
Acclimatisation Societies,
Participatory negotiation
NZSAA, RRA, NZJBA etc.
~-------4l
NWCO Hearing
~
~
Politician
INWASCA Decisionl
1
Consultant agencies
e.g. MAF, MWD
More participatory
negotiation
refused
NWCO
Water right
appl.i,cations
Appeals
IRWB Decision\
High Court
Decision
I
stress resolution
~-------------------------------------4FINAL
DECISION
72
Although the stress model does seem an appropriate model of
decision-making in resource allocation conflicts such as
the Rakaia, it has problems in that it can cause the
desires of society to increase continuously.
A rising
level of social aspirations will result in the perception
of more environmental stress and further action.
If, for
example, the final decision in the Rakaia River issue was
to place a NWC'O on the catchment, then the environmental
stress initially perceived (the loss of recreational and
amenity values) by some members of the public would be
alleviated.
After a short time, these people may also
become dissatisfied with the condition of the Waimakariri
River (a more "developed" river), and may seek to preserve
this.
The process would, therefore, begin again.
Each
time the stress is resolved, the expectations and aspirations of the public become higher.
Resources which are
seen to be in need of immediate preservation will be
"locked a\,lay" first, f.allowed by less important resources.
A conflict between environmental sustainability and
economic sustainability will eventually occur.
The reason
for this conflict is that all environmental resources,
which are usually exploited to maintain economic growth,
will be protected.
It can be concluded that neither the upward-forming
consensus model, nor the stress model adequately explain
decision-making in resource allocation and management.
The former model appears to be working in reverse, while
the latter will eventually result in further conflict.
The consequences are inevitable - any decision announced
73
is soon followed by public protest and,
sort of compromise is reached.
eventual~y,
some
Not only is the whole
process costly, both in dollar terms and in time wasted,
but the distribution of these costs and benefits is
unequal.
Thus, certainly in the long term, it would seem desirable
to switch over to a process based on the upward-forming
consensus model.
Decision-makers can no longer afford to
leave the public out when considering resource allocation
issues: \it is in their best interest to generate positive
public support before policy is formulated and decisions
made.
ITO
obtain this supyort. they must open up continuous
channels of communication between themselves and the
public.
For communication to be effective, decision-
makers must be prepared to provide the'public with more
relevant information than is presently available.
Costs
are also relevant since, ultimately, the public have to
pay and, understandablv, desire to know the relative
sacrifices involved (both in dollar terms and in resource
availability) for all alternatives.
5.2
The participants
The Rakaia River study points to a comrnonlyrecurring
theme, namely that the public want to be invo'lved in
decision-making processes and are resentful of the
"closed door" philosophy of much decision-making for
resource allocation in New Zealand.
The expectations of
the public interest groups, that involvement will
automatically result in the final decision, have,
j
I
."
74
however, not eventuated.
Part of this problem stems from
a lack of understanding of the management and allocation
processes by the public.
Although people know their own
needs and problems related to water use, they invariably
do not understand how the various uses and management
practices might affect one another.
This lack of understanding indicates that there is a need
for a clear natural resources policy in New Zealand.
In
essence, such a policy must:
1.
reconcile national, regional and local needs,
aspirations and existing 'policies;
2.
integrate technical information about the resources
and their possible uses with social, economic and
other environmental information; and
3.
anticipate the implications of alternative strategies,
and incorporate such information in subsequent policy
amendments.
It is desirable that those developing the policy believe
people are capable of contributing constructively to their
own futures and that the decision-makers and implementors
initiate a public participation programme to ensure that
this does happen.
The participants at the NWCO Hearing were typical of
people who were described in Chapter 3 and who participate
in natural resource decisions.
They were predominantly
European, middle class men, or, where membership of
interest groups extended to others, leadership was provided
by those in the middle class.
75
Although it was acknowledged in this study that it is
neither useful nor Possible to consult every individual
on every issue that may interest them, the question of
representation of the public interest must arise.
A
wide range of views was Covered at the Hearing, but the
participants were not representative in the formal sense
of the word.
They were not elected, and were representing
only a specific interest.
One solution to the problem of
representation would be to recognise that interest groups
do not represent the public interest, but it is in the
public interest that they should participate.
This recogni-
tion implies that involvement of interest groups per ~
is not the problem.
Rather, the issue is to ensure that
a balance is struck between differing vie~~oints.
Bias
and misrepresentation can be avoided through the involvement of a range of interest groups.
Thus, the "public
interest ll can be gauged by mediating between vari'ous
interests, and the key to the issue of representativeness
becomes the involvement of a complete range of interests
on a topic, rather than the nature of the public involved.
There is a need for the formation of a body which would
be responsible for ensuring that this complete range of
interests are addressed.
It is envisaged' that this body
would have guaranteed funding and a degree of detachment
from Ministerial oversight.
This detachment would enable
the body to remain relatively neutral in orientation and
to maintain a guardianship role over the "public interest ll
•
76
5.3
The hearing as a participatory technique
Public hearings are one of the more common methods of
allowing the public to express their opinions used in New
Zealand.
From the perspective of the participants, the
purpose of a hearing, such as the Rakaia River NWCO
Hearing, is two-fold:
it is one means whereby the public
is informed of both the nature of a proposed action and its
potential impacts, and it provides an opportunity for the
public to express their views and concerns about both the
development and its anticipated effects, to the proponent
and the decision-makers.
Continued reliance on this
approach is likely to occur, particularly for issues of
national or regional importance, because of its structured
and, therefore, controllable nature.
There are, however,
major limitations inherent in the structure of this process.
Hearings have traditionally been examples of representative
democracy in that a few have the opportunity to speak for
the many, under controlled circumstances (Swanson, 1972).
This narrow focus was certainly the case at the NWCO
Hearing.
Such hearings are likely to be structured, one-
way forums of communication in which the public may be
adequately represented, and inequitably considered.
These
limitations are of particular concern when the hearing is
the only channel through which the public may exercise
concern, dissent or support (Wood, 1977).
Hearings conducted in such a manner are explained by the
ndownwardn-forming consensus model of decision-making,
where the initiators of resource management do not appear
to be the public, but the administrators.
In addition,
77
hearings usually require elaborate procedures, such as
the preparation of briefs.
They are expensive in terms
of time and money, particularly when legal counsel are
involved.
Berger (1979) was responsible for establishing the Canadian
precedent of allowing the hearing process to become an
improved forum for two-way communication during his
enquiry of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline.
By taking his
enquiry to the communities which would be affected by the
construction, and by providing funds for groups who wished
to participate, the hearing process was made more democratic.
Other ways of improving the process for resource allocation
hearings are listed below.
The administrators must:
1.
define important issues before the hearing;
2.
begin the hearing at the earliest possible time after
the conflict is identified in the hope of an early
resolution;
3.
inclusion of women, Maoris and other minority or
underrepresented groups in decision-making committees
should be considered;
4.
ensure that participants have a clear understanding
of the procedure and full access to all relevant
information;
5.
initiate evening or weekend sessions to enable
greater equality of access;
6.
initiate informal hearings or hearings in different
settings (for example, a Marae hearing), for those
78
individuals or organisations who wish to speak but
are intimidated by the process or the amount of time
required to participate;
7.
ensure that formal statements and written comments
made at the hearing are summarised in a language
able to be understood by non-scientists, non-engineers
and non-lawyers.
This is important for safeguarding
equality; and
8.
make provision for the independent assessment of such
factors as the impact of technology on the physical
and social environment, and for the impartiality of
decision-makers presiding over hearings.
5.4
The role of the judiciary
As mentioned earlier, most of the public interest groups
were represented by legal counsel at the NWCO Hearing.
Roberts (1976) found that the techniques of advocacy and
lithe arts of legal combat appropriate to the Court" to be
out of place at a hearing where the purpose is to determine
how certain practical matters shall be arranged so as to
bring the greatest good to the greatest number.
Barristers
can give informed, articulate and lucid presentations of
the facts, but they are, perhaps, more appropriate in a
courtroom dealing with matters of law.
Town (1979)
relates the American experience with lawyers in environmental
legislation.
He says that "if you have enough lawyers
and money to splash around, you can postpone most planning
decisions indefinitely".
be avoided in New Zealand.
This unenviable situation must
Judge Turner, a chairman of
the Planning Tribunal furthers this argument.
He states:
79
The traditional adversary techniques of the
judicial process are not apt when applied to
resolving disputes over resource utilisation ••.
A judicial tribunal operates best when the
area of dispute or conflict and of the scope
of the matters which it is to take into
account have both been clearly defined for it
in advance.
That clear definition does not
exist at present.
(Turner, 1983).
It appears, then, that the role the judiciary plays in
resource allocation has been forced upon them by society,
not because of appropriateness but presumably because of
the qualities and
procedu~es
of the judicial process.
Turner (£E.cit.) assumes that the advantages of the
judicial process sought by society are a full hearing in
public of all arguments, a testing of the evidence which
is, and is seen to be, fair and dispassionate, a fully
reasoned decision, and the prompt correction of any errors
of law.
5.5
Legislative changes
The basis of the whole participation process is the
legislative framework.
until this is oriented towards a
more open approach incorporating the public's views, there
is little chance of public participation becoming more
effective.
The following comments are directed specifically
at the water and soil legislation in New Zealand, although
some of them are appropriate for other legislation such as
the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, the Public Works
Act 1981 and the National Development Act 1979.
There are three principle pieces of legislation for the
allocation of water - "the water allocation (management)
80
plan, water rights, and national water conservation
orders.
Matheson (Undated) suggests that this system of
allocation is unsatisfactory in that it fails to
integrate the three methods.
It may have been beneficial,
in the Rakaia case, to allow the management plan to
provide the broad policy guidelines with emphasis being
placed on wide ranging participation.
This plan would
have then provided a sound resource base for the next
round of negotiations.
This round could have been the
hearing, simultaneously, of the conservation order and
the water rights by NWASCA.
Such an amendment would
certainly eliminate some of the costs of the present
procedure.
To be of any real use, the management plan requires some
statutory recognition.
It seems unusual that the body
who investigates the resource, formulates the management
plan, and has the responsibility for the regulation of
the area, does not have the power to make any decisions
regarding the resource.
It is suggested in this study,
that a phrase giving this power to the Regional Water
Boards be incorporated in Section 14 of the Water and Soil
Conservation Act 1967.
Instream uses are not considered to be "positive uses" by
the 1967 Act.
As such, it is not clear whether a water
right can be sought for "non-consumptive" water uses.
until this is specified, the only method of protecting
the recreational and wildlife activities is by a national
or local conservation order.
81
It is further suggested that the membership of the NWASCA
(as one decision-making authority in water conservation
orders)
be changed and broadened to reflect the changing
"public interest".
In the long term, reform is also
needed to clarify the role of the Minister of Works, and
to relocate some of his power to non-partisans.
The participation content of the water and soil legislation
should be remodelled along the lines of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1977, to allow input from "any body
or person representing some relevant aspect of the public
interest" for every water right or conservation order
application (Section 2(3) (d».
The final legislative change proposed is the need to
provide funding so as to remove the financial and manpower
inequality that exists between interest groups and
proponents.
Recently, the ability of interest groups to
become involved in a hearing has depended more and more
upon whether funds are available, and the array of public
interest groups available to be involved has been narrowed
to the semi-government funded organisations such as the
Nature Conservation Council, or to the long-established
private organisations such as the Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society.
Palmer (1983) suggests that one
approach would be to amend the Legal Aid Act 1969, to
provide for the granting of assistance to non-profit
organisations who wish to participate.
It is proposed
here, however, that a more effective approach would be to
administer a fund through, the new Ministry for the
82
Environment which will obviously be closely involved in
the resource allocation process.
The creation of such a
fund by Cabinet, on a continued basis, would give evidence
of the government's commitment to effective, participatory
decision-making.
Some of the funds should be allocated to initiate a
programme of evaluation for public participation.
This
evaluation should investigate all aspects of the programme,
including the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
participants.
Ideally, this evaluation should be under-
taken by independent observers who are trained in assessment
techniques, and who are able to rapidly develop a rapport
with those involved in the public participation programme
(Sewell & Phillips, 1979).
They should be given a broad
brief which will enable them to gain access to necessary
information.
It is also important that the objectives
of the programme and the criteria for evaluation be
clearly identified.
It is desirable that this evaluation
be initiated with the participation programme, and be
ongoing so that any weaknesses revealed through the
evaluation can be modified.
5.6
Effectiveness of participants
The criteria for determining the effectiveness of the
participants in any decision-making process, as proposed
in Chapter 3, and the lessons learned from the study of
the Rakaia River participants, provide some factors which
may enable interest groups and individuals to participate
83
effectively.
Most of the factors are really political
tactics for manoeuvering the interest group into a better
position with respect to the decision-makers.
1.
A conventional approach to participation is most
likely to be more successful than a radical approach.
Decision-makers are generally more conservative and
will, therefore, respond better to participants with
a conventional submission.
2.
An approach which resembles the processes of those
who hold the power is also likely to receive more
attention.
For example, the use of a counsel for
a jUdicial body is advisable, since the formal legal
procedures that the body is accustomed to, will be
followed.
3.
Forewarned is forearmed:
the more a group has access
to policy determinations or decisions before these
become binding, the better its chances of success.
Obviously, friendly contacts in the "right" places
can be helpful.
4.
Experience plays a vital role in any participation
process.
It enables the interest groups and
individuals to take advantage of'a11 the opportunities
provided by a process.
5.
The value of prestigious figureheads, professional
help, and sound (preferable original) data cannot be
emphasised enough, particularly when participants
wish to confront technical specialists.
84
6.
The media help to activate public interest and
can give the impression of aroused public opinion.
The media also understand how to influence people
with good timing and the judicious use of phrases.
They
t~nd
to be sympathetic with the public,
particularly in conflicts with the bureaucracy.
7.
The final factor is a recommendation to tackle only
one issue at a time.
If an-interest group is able
to devote their attentions to just one cause, it is
probable that their approach will be more thorough
and sincere.
5.7
Effective public participation
There is no clear-cut solution to the problem of the
development of an effective public participation programme;
in fact, there may be no solution at all.
Participation
is moulded be case experience. There is no set pattern.
What may be suitable for one area and one issue may not
be appropriate for another.
Even during the evolution of
a programme, the participation procedures may have to be
changed.
It is not possible, therefore, to set out the
definitive rules for an effective public participation
process.
All that is attempted in this study is a series
of guidelines which may assist both the participant and
the implementor of the process to utilise the participatory
opportunity to the fullest.
The key to any effective participation programme is
awareness.
publ~c
The public must be educated at two levels -
85
the content level and the process level.
The content
level deals with the resource, for example, the physical
processes and surrounds of a river catchment, while the
latter deals with the decision-making procedures and the
role of the public within these.
Marks (1984) outlines
the case of the South Sasketchewan River Basin Planning
Programme, where this form of education programme was
attempted.
This programme was aimed at assisting people
to question and understand how water management can serve
the a"chievement of various social, environmental and
economic goals.
Having developed such a systems apprecia-
tion and knowing their own needs, the public were then
invited to reflect on the policies and objectives, and
on their own values and needs, and to provide their
considered opinion on which direction water management
for this region should take.
Education programmes such as this should be initiated by
the government in New Zealand.
At present, most New
Zealanders have no idea about the state of or the management of the country's resources.
Nor do they understand
the opportunities afforded to them to express their
opinions.
This kind of process change will require
patience and follow-up.
There is a need for the
makers and implementors to provide the
p~blic
dec~sion-
with all
available information. [:hey must be prepared to take
greater care in communiation with the public, by making
the issues clearer, making less use of jargon and by
making full use of the media as an information distributor.
Most importantly, decision-makers and implementors must
86
include public participation from the beginning of
all planning and decision-making.
Public meetings have
been shown to be an effective way of initiating participation (see, for example, Taylor, 1983 and Rees, 1984).
There should be more emphasis placed on these meetings
!
as sources of information and informal discussion.
The public will need to be assured that the participation
is not merely a public relations exercise in placation
(Anderson
&
Taylor, pers.
~.,
1984).
The development
of evaluation procedures by independent observers should
convince the public of the government's sincerity in this
respect.
Effective public participation is essential in the
procedures of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Public participa-
tion, SIA and EIA should be closely co-ordinated.
Whereas SIA focusses on what will happen to the people,
and EIA on what will happen to the environment, public
participation reflects what the people say they want for
their society or environment.
The information obtained
from the public, although not a substitute for either
SIA or EIA, is basic to the functioning of the processes.
Figure 5.2 illustrates the generalised steps of the two
assessment procedures and of the participatory action
which corresponds with each step.
The public participation process for increased effectiveness suggested in this study therefore, is one which
FIGURE 5.2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT~
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
Economic, technical and site selection
RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
PROPOSAL
"'""'====----
studiest---------------------------------~
im act assessment
assessment
PARTICIPATORY ACTION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
- determine public preferences
and needs
- community and environmental
studies
~--~
Evaluation of,
and necessary
adjustments to,~------------~participatory
action
-
determine public response
and views
- evaluation of alternative
allocation proposals
inform and discuss details
with public
- selection of one
alternative
determine public response
to implementation
- implementation
- monitoring
- determine public response to
any changes
CD
-...J
88
focusses on the public - their education and their
effective participation.
The comments and suggestions
for changes made earlier in this chapter will help to
ensure that the present participation procedure is made
equitable.
It must be realised, however, that regard-
less of the effectiveness of a public participation
programme, there will always be a point beyond which
involvement of the people cannot preceed.
At this
point, consultations and deliberations with the public
must stop, and a decision must be made.
89
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY
This study is concerned with public participation in
resource allocation.
It does not attempt to present the
definitive answers to the problems of public participation,
but rather, attempts to guide the implementors of participation programmes, the decision-makers and the participants
towards more effective participation.
The participants
have been focussed on throughout the study, for without
them, there can be no public participation.
The problems of public participation begin with a
definition of the concept.
The meaning, function and
importance of participation are different for different
cultures and social groups.
The contemporary form of
participation is best described as the direct involvement
of the people in the process of decision-making.
People's
perceptions of public participation also vary, ranging
from participation as a policy, through participation as a
tool for improving communications, to participation as a
strategy or as a therapeutic device.
The present interest in increased public participation in
resource allocation, however, appears to be as much a
characteristic of New Zealand's political system as it is
of other western democracies.
This pressure for increased
90
participation is based on both philosophical and pragmatic
considerations.
There is a general belief that in democratic
societies individuals have the right to be informed and
. consulted, and to express views on matters which affect
them personally.
More pragmatically, the demand for more
participation springs from distrust that the decision-makers
have ~uately gauged public preferences.
There is also a
feeling that plans have flaws which those planned for might
have pointed out and corrected if they had been given the
chance.
Public participation is not, however, without some disbenefits.
There are claims by critics of participation,
that the process is costly in terms of both time and money,
that it can support alienation and that it fails to satisfy
public requirements.
Although there are many models which endeavour to describe
decision-making, only two of these models explicitly
incorporate any form of public participation.
The upward-
forming consensus model views decision-making as a process
in which the public present their opinions to an elected
representative, who, in turn, expresses this to the
decision-makers to promote into policy guidelines.
stress model, however, emphasises social
p~ocesses
The
in which
decisions are reached as a result of a struggle for power,
influence or resources.
Ideally, the process of decision-making should incorporate
the views of all
tho~e
people who will be affected by a
91
decision.
This is, however, not practical.
Those who do
participate in natural resource decisions tend to be
middle class, European men.
Each participant becomes
involved for a particular reason and, while many believe
that they represent the "public interest", this is not the
case.
A framework for differentiating between participants was
used in this study to help determine the participant's
motivations for becoming involved in an issue.
This
framework separated the sectoral interest groups from the
individuals and the governmental organisations.
The
interest groups were further divided into private groups,
(
which have a personal interest in a decision, or civic
groups, which participate out of a moral or intellectual
concern.
The role of these participants in a decision was examined,
and criteria were developed to enable an independent assessor
to determine interest group effectiveness in participatory
programmes.
The first criterion is an internal one in
which the assessor determines whether or not the interest
group has achieved its objectives.
The influence that an
interest group has on the decision or decision-making process
is the second criterion.
Factors such as c~-operation
within and between interest groups, the ability to maintain
enthusiasm and outside support will contribute towards a
group's effectiveness.
92
A case study of the Rakaia River National Water Conservation
Order Hearing was used to illustrate some of the above
points and to closely examine the participants of one issue
of resource allocation.
The Rakaia River presented a good
opportunity to observe a decision-making procedure and,
as many of the conflicts between resource conservation and
development are common to other issues, it was an appropriate
study from which to extrapolate some general factors which
lead towards more effective participation.
The criteria
developed earlier were applied to six sectoral interest
groups.
It was concluded that the following factors may
enable interest groups to participate more effectively:
1.
experience in participation exercises;
2.
access to all relevant information;
3.
conventional rather than radical qpproaches;
4.
good relations with the media;
5.
prestigious figureheads or professional people
within the group;
6.
and
dedication to the issue.
Further proposals which could allow for more effective
participation are:
1.
a switch to decision-making based on the upwardforming consensus model;
2.
an acknowledgement of the importance of the interest
groups' participation to the "public interest";
3.
a complete range of issues covered for every topic;
4.
the formation of a government-funded, detached
organisation to represent the silent majority;
93
5.
a change to a more democratic form of communication
between the public
6.
a~d
the decision-makers;
a move to bar the judiciary from non-legal resource
allocation hearings, and a clarification of the
scope of the issue for legal hearings;
7.
and
changes in the soil and water legislation to allow
- an integration of present methods of water allocation
- statutory recognition of the management plan
- a broader base for the decision-making body of
NWASCA
- a wider participation content to allow input from
all affected and interested people
- funds for the public interest groups to enable
them to participate more fully
- funds to initiate public participation evaluation
programmes.
The need for a clear natural resources policy and for a
greater recognition of the role of public participation in
social and environmental impact assessment procedures were
also proposed.
Consideration of such a policy and of the
assessment procedures should become intrinsic features of
any decision regarding the allocation of resources.
Effective public participation is, however, .an ideal - a
goal which is sought but not often achieved.
There is no
simple procedure which, if followed, will provide the
perfect participation programme.
Public awareness and the
education of the public in both the nature of the resource
and in the decision-making process, are seen as the key
94
factors in the movement towards a strategy for effective
public participation.
The initiation of independent
evaluators of public participation programmes is a further
step in the right direction.
iI
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
EDS
Environmental Defense Society
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
MAF
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
MWD
l-1inistry of Works and Development
NCCB and RWB
North Canterbury Catchment Board and
Regional Water Board
NWASCA
National Water and Soil Conservation
Authority
NWCO
National Water Conservation Order
NZED
New Zealand Electricity Department
NZJBA
New Zealand Jet Boat Assocaition
NZSAA
New Zealand Salmon Angler's Association
RF
&
BPS
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
RRA
Rakaia River Association
SIA
Social Impact Assessment
3
m Is; cumecs
cubic metres per second
96
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would never have been completed without the help
of a large number of people. I would like to take this
opportunity' to thank them for their assistance, co-operation
and support.
First, my thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Nick Taylor, for
his interest and advice at all stages of the study.
frustrations with me, as
a biologist
His
attempting to learn
some of the principles of sociology, must have been immense.
Nick's insistence on consistency·and clarity improved the
text considerably.
Sincere thanks are also extended to Professor Derrick
Sewell and to Mr. John Glennie, for reading and making
useful comments on the drafts.
I am most grateful for
the time they both gave.
My thanks also, to those people who willingly submitted
themselves to interviews.
In particular, I would like
to thank Mr. M. Cox, Mr. T. Crowe, Mr. K. Hughey,
Mr. D. Rankin, Mr. D. Watson and Mr. B. Wyn-Williams.
Without their assistance, this study could not have existed.
I would like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Glenys Lamb
for the excellent job typing the manuscript.
Her helpful
suggestions for style and layout definitely improved the
presentation.
Special thanks are extended to Betty and Bill
9,7
r
Dudding for their help with final production details, and
for their support and friendship during my time in
Christchurch.
I am indebted to the staff and to fellow classmates from
the Centre for Resource Management.
The opportunity to
discuss issues witn them throughout the last two years
has broadened my outlook, and my study has benefitted
from this.
Finally, my thanks to my parents for their ongoing support
and interest.
The assistance offered by them has been
greatly appreciated.
98
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. et al., 1984. Towards a Resolution of Conflict
in Water Resource Allocation. Discussion Paper,
Centre for Resource ~1anagement, Christchurch.
\'
Anderson, N. & Taylor, C.N. 1984. Personal Communication.
Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln College.
Anonymous. 1982. Wild and scenic rivers - the new
legislation. Soil and Water 18(2): 14-15.
Arnstein, S.R.' 1969. A ladder of citizen participation.
American Institute of Planners Journal 35: 216-224.
Bercovitch, J. 1984. Social Conflicts and Third Parties:
Strategies of Conflict Resolution. westview Press
Inc. Color·ado,U.S.A.
Berger, T.R. 1979. Small Can Be Beautiful - An Address to
the World University Service Conference of Canadian
Student Leaders. Ryerson University, Toronto,
27 October, 1979.
Birch, W.F. 1979. The National Development Bill. In:
New Zealand Parliament Parliamentary Debates~26:
3552 Government Printer. Wellington.
Bowden, M.J. et ale 1983a. The Rakaia R.iver and Catchment:
A Resource-Survey. North Canterbury Catchment Board
and Regional Water Board, Christchurch. 4 Volumes.
Bowden, M.J. et ale 1983b. Interim Report on the Groundwater
Resource Of the Central Plains. North Canterbury
Catchment Board and Regional Water Board. Christchurch.
Burch, W.R. 1976. Who participates - a sociological
interpretation of natural resource decisions.
Natural Resource Journal 16: 14-54.
Cant, G. & Evans, M. 1983. Plans for the plains: the
irrigation debate. pp.57-7l In: Bedford, R.D. &
Sturman, A.P. (Editors). Canterbury at the Crossroads.
N.Z.Geographical Society, Christchurch.
Cathcart, R.W. et ale 1983. Rakaia River Catchment and
Central PraIns - Draft Management Plan. North
Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water
Board. Christchurch.
Cigler, A.J. & Loomis, B.A. (Eds.) 1983. Interest Group
Politics. Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington.
U.S.A.
i
'!1
Connor, D.M. 1982. Constructive Citizen Participation:
A Resource Book. Development Press. Victoria BC,
Canada.
99
Connor, H.E. 1983. Transcript of evidence presented to
the Rakaia River National water Conservation Order
Hearing, Christchurch, December 8-16, 1983.
Conway, M.J. 1979. Public participation under water and
soil procedures. In: Public Involvement in
Environmental Plannin S
oslum Proceed in s.
-Gresham P. & Crot ers, C. Eds. M1n1stryof
Works & Development and Commission for the
Environment, pp.18-25.
Crowe, A. 1984. Personal Communication. Commercial
Salmon Rancher, Rakaia River, Canterbury.
Fagence, M. 1977. Citizen Participation in Planning.
Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford, U.K.
Gresham, P. & Crothers, C. (Editors) 1979a. Sym~osium on
Public Involvement in Environmental Plann1ng.
Ministry of Works and Development and Commission
for the Environment. 26-27 February, 1979.
Gresham, P. & Crothers, C. (Editors) 1979b. Public
Involvement in Environmental Planning - Symposium
Issues Paper. November 1979. Ministry of Works
and Development and Commission for the Environment.
Harrington, G. 1983. Transcript of evidence presented to
the Rakaia River National Water Conservation Order
Hearing, Christchurch, December 8-16, 1983.
Hughey, K.F.D. 1983. Conservation and management of the
Rakaia, pp.89-101. In: Bedford, R.D. & sturman, A.P.
(Editors). Canterbury-at the Crossroads. N.Z.
Geographical society, Christchurch.
Hughey, K.F.D. 1984. Personal Communication. President,
New Zealand Salmon Angler's Association.
Kasperson, R.E. 1969. Political behaviour and the decisionmaking process in the allocation of water resources
between recreational and municipal use. Natural
Resources Journal 9(2): 176-211.
Krutilla, J.V. & Fisher, A.C. 1975. The Economics of
Natural Environments. John Hopkins university
Press, Baltimore, U.S.A.
Lewthwaite, W. 1984. Evidence presented to the Planning
Tribunal Hearing on the Rakaia River National Water
Conservation Order. November 1984. Christchurch.
Lindbolm, C.E. 1959. The science of "muddling through".
Public Administration Review, 19: 79-88.
Maass, A. and others. 1962. Design of Water Resource
s*stems. Havard University Press. Cambridge.
C apter 15.
100
Marks, J.V. 1984. Vetting long-range planning options
with the pUblic: the case of the South Saskatchewan
River Basin Planning Program. Social Impact
Assessment 90/92: 8-15.
Matheson, J.E. Undated. The Rakaia River: the allocation
of a finite resource. Unpublished report to the
Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated.
Mitchell, B. 1979. 'Geography and Resource Analysis.
Longman Group Ltd., London.
Moore, P.W. 1975. Public Decision-Making and Resource
Management: A Review. Discussion Paper No. 17
university of Toronto. Ontario.
Mosley, P. 1982. critical depths for passage in braided
rivers, Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 16(3 4):
3
-3 7.
Mosley, P. 1984. Personal Communication. Scientist,
Environmental Hydrology Group. MWD. Christchurch-.
Ministry of Works and Development. 1981. Opportunities
for Involvement in Planning Procedures. Town and
Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works
and Development.
National Development Act. 1979.
Neeson, M.P. 1983. Institutions for water resources
management in North Canterbury: A case study.
Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis in Resource Management.
University of Canterbury and Lincoln College.
New Zealand Planning Council. 1976. New Zealand at the
turning point. Report of the Task Force on Economic
and Social Planning.
National Water and Soil Conservation Authority. 1982.
A Draft for a National Inventory of Wild and
Scenic Rivers. Water and Soil Miscellaneous
Publications Number 42. Wellington.
National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation. 1984.
Report of a NWASCA Committee appointed to examine
and make recommendations on the Rakaia River
National Water Conservation Order Application.
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
O'Riordan, T. 1971. Public opinion and environmental
quality: a reappraisal. Environment and Behaviour
3 (2): 191-214.
~Ol
O'Riordan, T. 1972a. Towards a strategy of public involvement.
In: Sewell, N.R.D. and Burton, I. (Editors).
Perceptions and Attitudes in Resource Management.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources •. Ottawa,
Canada.
O'Riordan, T. 1972b. D~cision-making and environment
quality: an analysis of a water quality issue. in the
Shuswap and Okanagan Valleys, British colombia.
pp.l-lll. In: Foster, H.D. (Editor). Okanagan Water
Decisions. Western Geographical Series Volume 4.
Departemnt of Geography, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia.
O'Riordan, T. 1976.
Environmentalism.Pion Ltd. London.
O'Riordan, T. 1977. Citizen participation in practice:
some dilemmas and possible solutions. pp.159-171.
In: Sewell, W.R.D. and Coppock, J.T. (Editors.
PUblic Particieation in Planning. John Wiley and
Sons. Great Br1tain.
Palmer, K.A. 1983. Planning for major resource utilization the case for public participatiop. Seminar· on
Planning for Major Resource Utilization. Auckland.
26 November 1983.
The Press.
1861~.
The Press Company, Christchurch.
Public Works Act. 1981.
Rapkin, C. 1979. Recent developments in community
participation in urban planning in the united
States. In: Soen, D. (Editor). New Trends in
Urban Pl'anning: Studies in Housing, Urban Design
and Planning. Oxford.
Rees, W.E. 1984. The potential role of public hearings in
impact assessment. Social Impact Assessment 90/92:
27-32.
Roberts, N. 1976.
London.
The Reform of Planning Law.
Macmillan.
Sewell, W.R.D. and O'Riordan. T. 1976. The culture of
participation in environmental decision-making.
Natural Resources Journal 16: 1-21.
Sewell, W.R.D. and Phillips, S.D. 1979. Models for the
evaluation of public participation programmes.
Natural Resource Journal 19(2): 337-358.
Smith, L.G. 1984. Public participation in policy making:
the state-of-the-art in Canada. Geoforum 15(4) •
In Press.
Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act. 1941.
102
Swanson, D. 1972. Public perceptions and resources planning.
In: Sewell, W.R.D. and Burton, I. (Editors).
Perceptions and Attitudes in Resource Management.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. ottawa,
Canada.
Taylor, C.N. 1983. Anthropology and the planning of new
resource development: the study of South Island
Lignites. Paper presented to the AnilUal Conference
of the New Zealand Association of Social Anthropologists,
Auckland, May 1983.
Taylor, G. 1983. Planning for conservation and development.
Paper presented to the Planning for l-1aj or Resource
Utilisation Seminar, Auckland. 23 November 1983.
Teniere-Buchot, P.F. 1967. The role of the public in water
management decisions"in France. Natural Resources
Journal 16: 159-176.
Town, G.A. 1979. Public participation in district and
regional planning. pp.15-17. In: Gresham, P. and
Crothers, C. (Editors). Public Involvement in
Environmental P1anningSym osium Proceedings.
Ministry of Works and Deve opment and commission
for the Environment.
1
Town and Country Planning Act. 1977.
Turner, A.R. 1983. Resource Management by Judicial Process:
A Review of an Unsatisfactory Situation. Paper
presented to the Seminar on Planning for Major
Resource Utilisation. Auckland. 26 November 1983.
Water and Soil Conservation" Act. 1967.
Wengert, N. 1955. Natural Resources and the Political
Struggle. New York.
Wengert, N. 1976. Citizen participation: practice in
search of a theory. Natural Resources Journal 16:
23-40.
White, A.T. 1982. Why community participation?: a discussion
of the arguments. Assignment Children 59/60:
17-34.
Wi11iman, E.B., Stevens, A.D., Lewthwaite, W.J. and
Stribling, P.W. 1982. Development in the design of
irrioation schemes in relation to water availability.
Proc~edings of the Institution of Professional
Engineers of N.Z. Annual Conference. Christchurch.
Wilson, R. 1982. From r.1anapouri to Aramoana.
Press, Waiwera, Auckland.
Earthworks
Wood, C.J.B. 1977. The use of threat in community decision
making: The Goldstream case, Victoria B.C. pp.71-88.
In: Sewell, W.R.D. & Coppock, J.T. (Editors).
PUblic Participation in Planning. John Wiley and
Sons Ltd. Great Britain.
103
Wyn-Wi11iams, B. 1984. Personal Communication.
Rakaia River Association.
President,
Young, D. 1984. The Rakaia: everyone's last ditch.
Listener 106(2298): 20-22.